![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 |
I wrote that the parallel universe version necessarly breaks symmetry between universes. To me it was kind of obvious when I wrote it.
But now that I'm thinking about it, I'm not so sure. Does it make any sense to consider an operation that would switch between two alternate universes ?? I doubt it would, unless you consider some kind of a meta-universe that includes all alternate universes. Which is kind of weird.
Therefore, if someone removes all remarks concerning the breaking of symetry in the article, I would understand.
-- Grondilu ( talk) 16:37, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Another way of interpreting the parallel universe theory is to say that you travel across to a universe where it's present or 'now' .is. 5 seconds ago. That is to say their universe is identical to ours as it was in the past.
It's not the most popular of the theories among many because it questions whether or not we can really call this time travel.
“The time traveler who journeys to 1001 is not traveling back to 1001 at all, as the traditional conception of time travel would seem to require; rather, it is more precise to think of his traveling across to 1001” Abbruzzese 2001
By getting rid of reverse cause and effect, haven't we basically got rid of time travel? Well, no. We may well travel ‘across’ time not 'backwards' but this other universe (which up until our arrival is the same in .every. respect to our own) could in fact be thought of as a ‘present’ version of the past. So rather than questioning the existence of other universes, this argument means we may well need to redefine what time travel exactly .is.
STEVEN ROBERT GILL — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.30.25.224 ( talk) 15:31, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
Thinking about this further, you could in theory add a fifth animation on the main page representing this alternate interpretation of time travel. Someone will have to do it on my behalf since I haven't got the first clue as to how you go about doing it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.30.25.224 ( talk) 16:14, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
If time travel is possible, and you do travel to the past, then you already have been in the past and it's a part of the present already. For whatever reason, if you travel to the past to change something that contributed to the present as you know it, you can't, because it didn't get changed. From the perspective of the present, events in the past are immutable, and the most a time traveler could accomplish is to create the future that he knows already exists. Nothing else can happen because it didn't happen. No paradox, no causality issues.
Personally, I think time travel is impossible due to the conservation of mass/energy. Something sent into the past would look like destruction of mass/energy in the present and creation of mass/energy in the past. Jlodman ( talk) 05:29, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
From the lead section:
Why arguably? I thought this effect had been experimentally confirmed (albeit, given current technology, by only minute amounts). 86.179.118.226 ( talk) 21:58, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
I meant "skipping" as in actually not being physically present in the intervening years, like in "Back to the Future" where the DeLorean just vanishes from one time and place and appears in another, a pretty common convention in sci-fi time travel. In relativity even if you traveled 500 years into the future in Earth's frame in only 1/10 of a second of your own time, in the Earth's frame your ship would still be present at every moment in those 500 years, it's just that all processes aboard your ship would be running incredibly slow in that frame. Anyway, "in principle" would be OK with me, though I'd suggest "possible in principle" rather than "in principle possible", I think it's the more common phrase (and the two p's in a row sounds a little awkward). Hypnosifl ( talk) 00:01, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
To reduce the length of this article, perhaps the section of ideas from fiction should be merged into the related article Time travel in fiction. That article has taken a science fiction history approach to the subject, which perhaps could be nicely complemented by the approach taken in THIS article. ChrisBaker ( talk) 17:31, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
The article is currently tagged as too long, and indeed I think it is.
In order to shorten the article, I think we shoud discuss which parts should stay in it, and which part should be put in a separate article.
Time travel is still a very imaginary experiment. Actually science fiction is by far the most common place for time travel to occur. Therefore, I think the ideas from fiction should be the most part of the article, and it should be one of the first sections. Rigourus science hypothesis should be regarded as digressions, and should be put at the end of the article, or in a separate article.
-- Grondilu ( talk) 16:47, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
i have heard somewhere that if a train travels at the speed of 7 rounds of earth in a sec it would go 100 years forward in just 1 week.is it possible in future?can a train can travel at that much speed on earthronitd 09:28, 25 March 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ronitd ( talk • contribs)
I highly doubt a train can sustain such a speed without overheating. Even if a train could be that fast it would not go forward in time. A train ride with that speed would be like arriving at your destination the time you went aboard the train. . . . I guess? Matthew Goldsmith 22:11, 27 March 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lightylight ( talk • contribs)
According the the grandfather paradox if I were to travel to the past to kill my grandfather and succeed I would have never existed in the first place. Killing my grandfather would result in my parents never being born and without any parents to give birth to me I wouldn't exist. According to fatalism what has already happened cannot be changed because it was fated to happen. Since my grandfather had married, raised my parent, and my parent raised me, I cannot kill my grandfather. He was fated to live so he will live regardless of any murder attempt. Matthew Goldsmith 22:33, 27 March 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lightylight ( talk • contribs)
I agree. If time travelling is possible it means the travelling subject/object would have to be immune to causing events that cause his/its non-existence in the future.
The Tourism in Time section contains various suggested reasons why time travelers, if they exist, might not be visible to us. However the text does not mention a very compelling reason why we would not see time travelers, even if time travel in the future is very common. This is the fact that travelers, in selecting the time that they wish to travel back to, would have to choose the very time in history which we occupy, to a tollerance of better than +/- 5.3 x 10 -44 second, the time taken by light to traverse the Planck Length. This is the "thickness of the present" on the historical time-line. It is the amount by which an object in front of you would have to move ahead or behind you in time, in order to fade from view. So if the travelers are further in the past or the future than this, we will not see them. Consequently there could be many trillions of time travelers on Earth, not one of which would we have any realistic chance of ever seeing. It is not sufficient for time machine operators to just select the year, month and day as in popular fiction. They have to "get it right" to the nearest 53 nano-pico-pico-picoseconds. Enough time travelers to pack-fill the entire solar system, all conveniently heading for the very second we occupy, and shooting with an accuracy of +/- half a second, -- would not have a single success. Yet the Article has no mention of this very major explanation for their absence. ( 204.112.72.203 ( talk) 20:07, 8 April 2011 (UTC))
1.. The model explains the question that, until now, any 6 year old kid could always have used to shoot down other models: "If the cosmos is infinite, then what is it expanding out into?" Answer: the hypersphere isnt expanding; the whole shooting match stays the same size. 2.. Prediction: Expect the rate of expansion of the 3D cosmos to be increasing. However this will not last. 3.. The 3D expansion has nothing to do with gravity! It takes place at 90 degrees to that! All that gravity will do, is pull material around the circumferance of the ring, to create a "diamond ring" concentration at one place on the ring. The actual expansion is driven by the central hyperelectrostatic force which generates the field! 4.. All the talk of the cosmos expanding til the lights go out, is misconceived. It also fails to answer the 6-year-old kid. The lights will come back on again as the ring passes over the equator and eventually shrinks towards the south pole. 5.. The 3D cosmos Bangs (ejected from north pole) and Crunches (falls into south pole ) endlessly. However the 4D hypershpere has always existed. Next time round, we are all antimatter, coming the other way! 6.. There is probably no Freewill. This is because the lines of force (=strings) are pretty stationary (although they might move a bit). This means that a time traveler who manages to bend back his lines of force so he can visit the Past, would not be able to change much. Moreover he would not get the inclination to do so, as the particles in his brain are also strings (lines of force)connecting the past to the future. If however he did manage to make changes, things would work their way back to how it was, as the strings settle into their usual positions again. This explains every time-travel paradox. It should have occured to physicists that, as there is only 1 reality, these paradoxes were arising out of Misconception. 7.. Parallel 3D universes are concentric rings one following behind the other as the pole repeatedly ejects them. They are therefore seperated in time, but they each have pretty much the same history. 8... From time to time our 3D space fills with antimatter galaxies which leave a few strange particles here. This is just an antimatter ring passing thru. The galaxies will vanish again.
As you can see, I'm an independent thinker. I've had this model on the internet for some years, although its down at the moment. Now...is there anything this model doesn't explain? Over to you! I'm also Valhalan; I'll sign myself properly this time :-) ( Valhalan ( talk) 19:39, 9 April 2011 (UTC))
I'd like to offer for consideration by those maintaining this page the following external link to an essay titled 'On the Impossibility of Time Travel':
http://www.fqxi.org/data/essay-contest-files/Smith_IOTT6.cwk.pdf
Thank you. JCNSmith ( talk) 16:16, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
Okay. Sort of expected this reply, but wanted to run it up the flagpole. Thank you for taking the time to look it over and provide this constructive reply. I'm personally convinced that we're overdue for a change of paradigm in our thinking about the nature of time, but this isn't the place for that debate. Thanks again. JCNSmith ( talk) 02:57, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
The only way time travel can be true is if the age and knowledge of the traveler remain unchanged. Concerning time travel this is the most important law. Therefore we are NOT traveling forward through time but only experiencing an quantum instant called "now". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tpculp ( talk • contribs) 13:51, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
Redoc continues to add an External link ( http://lighttrap.codeplex.com/ ) to the See also section, which is for internal wiki links. Also, he has made NO case for inclusion of the link, merely pointing on user talk pages to somebody's general musings about time (at http://code.msdn.microsoft.com/lighttrap ). I am removing it again at least until until he explicates HERE at least ONE reason for inclusion. Being able to locate an image in space and time does not make it an example of time travel, not does its continued existence over time. -- JimWae ( talk) 17:25, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
In this section, should there be a concern of undue weight WP:UNDUE being given to claims of violating any laws of physics. I mean if it is one researcher is making such claims versus the mainstream view, then does it deserve an entire paragraph? ---- Steve Quinn ( talk) 01:35, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
The article should include a definition of "timeline" as used in the article, since that word is used frequently in the article and has a specialized meaning.
Obankston ( talk) 00:31, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
"In addition, the second law of thermodynamics only states that entropy should increase in systems which are isolated from interactions with the external world, so Igor Novikov (creator of the Novikov self-consistency principle) has argued that in the case of macroscopic objects like the watch whose worldlines form closed loops, the outside world can expend energy to repair wear/entropy that the object acquires over the course of its history, so that it will be back in its original condition when it closes the loop."
Scientists have proved than photons cannot go faster than light and so this method is impossible. http://news.discovery.com/space/time-travel-impossible-photon-110724.html 175.142.167.192 ( talk) 13:54, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Sorry, I think "On the other hand, the second law of thermodynamics is understood by modern physicists to be a statistical law rather than an absolute one, so spontaneous reversals of entropy or failure to increase in entropy are not impossible, just improbable (see for example the fluctuation theorem)." is improper to describe the abrasion of a watch, because in "real world" no law will predict different results from classical ones. Ltysdd ( talk) 07:54, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
18:09, 15 October 2011 (UTC) the Talmud relates that Among the Tannaim, the generations of rabbinic teachers whose work is recorded in the Mishnah, Rabbi Akiba is generally considered the towering personality. Approximately one hundred years after his death, a legend is reported by R. Judah bar Ezekiel (219-299 C.E.), in the name of his teacher and sometime traveling companion, Ray: - Rav Judah said in the name of Rav, - God translated Moses in time so that Moses himself attended a lecture given by Rabbi Akiva. story is told of Rabbi Akiva that when Moses ascended Mount Sinai, he saw that God was putting little taggim (the small 'crowns' on the top of the letters in the Torah scroll) on top of the Torah that was to be presented to the Jews at Mount Sinai. Moses asked God to explain the meaning of these taggim. God explained that in the future a man by the name of Akiva ben Joseph will reveal what these signs mean. - - Moses asked God to reveal to him this man and so God replied to Moses to turn around. When Moses turned around he saw a sage surrounded by many rows of students listening eagerly to this man's teaching. The greater students sat in front and the lesser in the rear. Moses, being a very humble man, took a seat in the eighth row and began listening. Rabbi Akiba taught a certain law and the students asked him what is the source, he replied that it came down to us from our great master Moses. At this lecture, Rabbi Akiva stated that all that he was teaching originated with Moses - yet Moses himself heard these matters for the first time! - Moses came back and questioned God, if there is such a great man like that why give the Torah through me? God answered, "Be silent, this is my will." (Menachoth 29b) - - One can then understand this in this way : Rabbi Akiva indeed originated the material, and then this fact allowed the material to become known to Moses via God prior to Rabbi Akiva's birth, at Mt. Sinai, creating again a non-causal loop.IF so this is the first time paradox story. - - The means by which at Sinai Moses was made aware of all the halachot which would eventually be developed is generally taken to be via direct transmission from God, as was the case with the rest of the Torah. However the means by which Moses is made aware of those matters discovered by Rabbi Akiva may have been by the bringing of Moses forward in time to participate in Rabbi Akiva's lectures. - ( see Rabbi Akiba's Crowns: Postmodern Discourse and the Cost of Rabbinic Reading - by Laurence L. Edwards http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0411/is_4_49/ai_68738707/) - eli eshed The earliest time travell to the past known is FAUST THE SECOND PART " by Johann Wolfgang von Goethe. Part of it was already published in 1827 and completly in 1832 . And in it there is what seems to Be a time travel of Faust to Ancient Greece. It is possible though that it is a journey to a parallel world of ancient Greece in which Greece gods still exist.The point in not very clear probably since the comcept of time travell to the past was not very clear to Goethe himself, he was just the inventor of it.... Time travell to te future on the other hand is ancient concept which exist from antiquity. eli eshed — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.69.168.53 (talk)
Hans Christian Andersen Journey on Foot from Holmen's Canal to the East Point of Amager". a journey to the future of 2129.
MAY 1838 Hans Christian Andersen The Goloshes of Fortune - http://hca.gilead.org.il/goloshes.html - which is among other things about time travel to the past to Denemark of medieval times.After that the hero make a space journey. 1845 Hans Christian Andersen Lykkens Blomst (The flower of happiness). Magic comedy in two acts,C.A. Reitzel Publishers, 1845. this is a time travel play in which a 19 century dane is taken by magick to inhabite the bodies of a ,medival prince and a 18 century poet and eventuall returned to his time and place. eli eshed . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.69.168.53 ( talk) 01:15, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
This article is a bit ridiculous. Rather than focusing on the hypothetical, why not focus on the physical realities we know about first?! Nowhere in the article do I see it mentioned that light actually travels in time. Per definition, light travels in time. For the light, no time passes, and only the surrounds seems to speed up, which is in fact what I understand to be time travel. Albeit, only in one direction: forward. And with a speed limit. Doesn't anybody else think this relevant to mention in the first or second paragraph even?! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.215.115.224 ( talk) 09:11, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
They found nothing new. If Cohen/Glashow is right, then the OPERA results are inconsistent; the ICARUS replication, despite the media hoopla a month after the paper came out, means nothing. Check the one line on ICARUS in the OPERA neutrino anomaly.
Thom5738 ( talk) 06:07, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps the best example of forward time travel (at a rate faster than normal of course) is the Ender's Game series by Orson Scott Card. Throughout the series, the concept of Time Dilation at Relativistic Speeds (Speeds very near, but certainly not at, the speed of light) is taken into account. Many of the plots in the series feature this manner of time travel; examples include the Earth fleet in the Third Bugger War in Ender's Game, Ender's travels from planet to planet that allowed him to experience 3000 years of Human History in about 20, the Lusitania Fleet and more. It should be noted that this sort of time travel is scientifically sound. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Belac Athanasius ( talk • contribs) 01:25, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
I was glad to hear in this Sean Carroll's conference a nice part about the compatibility between the concepts of free will and determinism. Here's a quote:
People often think determinism is in conflict with free will so they might think it is not pertinent to talk about free will in this article about time travel. I believe this is wrong: there is a problem between time travel and free will, but not between free will and determinism. Therefore, a dedicated section about time travel and free will would be pertinent I think, and could use a link to this conference as a starting source reference. -- Grondilu ( talk) 16:09, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
May I add The Bible Book of Genesis to Literature_timeline? In Genesis, God created the universe in 7 days despite it being billions of years old and God created things out of order. The movie Time Bandits puts forth that he used time travel. I'm not going to add it without discussion, but I think it seriously merrits adding. Think so too? Are you ready for IPv6? ( talk) 23:13, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
Given that all matter does move through time constantly and moves through time at different rates, the introductory statement that time travel is simply moving from point A to point B on the timeline then questioning whether or not it is possible to do so is mistaken.
The bulk of the article seems to focus around the question of "if we could travel back in time, would we be able to experience historical events?" Physics has already shown that that is not possible. This was firmly established as soon as Einstein demonstrated space-time. Because physical laws are time symmetrical, there is no difference between moving backwards on a time-line or forwards on a time-line; the physcical results are the same. We do not have the ability to tell the difference between objects moving in opposite directions along the time-line, only if they are moving at different speeds. Our GPS satellite system proves Einstein's theory on time dilation and disproves any fictional concepts or hypothesis about time working any other way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.213.51.98 ( talk) 23:40, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
I was very surprised to see no mention of the most likely first form of time travel, which would involve super cooling. A partical with enough energy taken away from it will infact by moving in space time at a slower rate. Hence time travel — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.207.129.95 ( talk) 15:31, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
The "science" of this article leans more toward speculation bordering on science fiction, yet presents it in such a way that it is hard to distinguish speculation from proven science. Forward time travel has been proven experimentally (any modern physics textbook will recount the details for you), while time travel into the passed is purely speculative and indeed runs contrary to conservation of energy. This article should be cleaned up to differentiate speculation (even that done by respected theorists) from mainstream science. 129.63.129.196 ( talk) 19:35, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
With that graphic, wouldn't it also mean that once his double steps out of the doorway that if someone tried to restrain him from going through, there is no way they can succeed in doing so? 66.189.38.183 ( talk) 01:32, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
The Time Travel page should also include insights on stopping time in one place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.231.27.203 ( talk) 20:51, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
Freezing time very important to be mentioned in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rhalawan ( talk • contribs) 11:05, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Is there a way to work this article in here? It looks like relatively new information (2011) with fairly wide press coverage.
http://gajitz.com/quantum-entanglement-suggests-time-travel-is-possible/
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2011/01/timelike-entanglement/ Damonthesis ( talk) 02:29, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
I remove one section about uncited references to time travel in fiction and one in a subtly different form pops up. the section, 'Ideas from fiction' and the subsection 'Rules of time travel' both are largely uncited and contain more than a little
Synthesis. We need to start seeing less editorial extemporizing and more references where reliable sources have made these connections/drawn these conclusions.
Without it, some significant parts of these sections are going to be removed as per our guidelines. -
Jack Sebastian (
talk)
03:03, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
Want to know if time-travel is possible within your lifetime? Easy. Just plan on meeting yourself at Noon tomorrow at your home, for example. If you show up and you meet yourself, then woohoo, you just proved that time travel will exist, and you will have access to it. Of course, if you don't meet yourself, this could mean that you died before sending yourself back. B) the cost is too much, and you wont be able to do it. C) you change your mind about meeting yourself and telling yourself to masturbate less frequently.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.70.202.28 ( talk) 18:31, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
Can we write in the article about if it's possible?-- 78.156.109.166 ( talk) 15:46, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
Would this be a defining aspect of a character worthy of categorizing? CensoredScribe ( talk) 04:12, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
In the paradoxes section, there is this statement: "On the other hand, Stephen Hawking has argued that even if the MWI is correct, we should expect each time traveler to experience a single self-consistent history, so that time travelers remain within their own world rather than traveling to a different one." But then in the discussion of the theories as played out in literature, in the Type 3 universe, this type of scenario isn't talked about. 108.84.252.8 ( talk) 13:38, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Frequently seen in fiction: Stacey puts Jim into a trance and sends him back 20 years. For Jim, 5 minutes later, while walking down the street, Jim stubs his toe. We see that Stacey has been monitoring Jim for that 5 minute interval without incident, then future Jim moans with the pain that his past self experiences from stubbing his toe - as if future and past are two different places which are "synchronized" so that the 5 minutes after Jim's arrival in the past some how correlates in a causative way with Jim's existence in the future. Or Ed goes into the past and 4 days later destroys the MacGuffin Box, then we see those who remained in the future waiting and then voila 4 days after Ed's departure to the past, the MacGuffin Box disappears. Does this dopey plot device have an official name? "Dopey Synchrony" ? MistySpock ( talk) 02:31, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
The story in mahabharatha specifically say about the speed difference of time in different dimensions. Which can be compared easily with time dilation in modern physics. Thus the topic is inappropriate in the context. Please review and take necessary measures. Vishnujithts ( talk) 14:06, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
Given the length and level of detail of this article, the lead is woefully inadequate. The lead should be a summary of the article that should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article by establishing context, explaining why the topic is notable, and summarizing the most important points, as stated in WP:LEAD. That's not what it's doing now. Requesting assistance and feedback for improvements to lead. BlackHades ( talk) 20:08, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 3 external links on
Time travel. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers. — cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 19:50, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Time travel. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 19:20, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
I think that this article needs a history section (If not) And the improvement is similar to Albert Einstein's Theory of Relativity with Time Travel would be perfect because it starts with that. DatNuttyWikipedian ( talk) 07:55, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
This was copied from
User talk:BruceGrubb
|
---|
Note: I have undone the following of your recent edits per wp:unsourced and wp:nor ( [1], [2], [3], [4]). Please read these aspects of Wikipedia policies. - DVdm ( talk) 19:18, 14 May 2016 (UTC) |
The article says in the lead: "traveling to an arbitrary point in time has a very limited support in theoretical physics", while in the following text it says: "one-way time travel into the future via time dilation is a proven phenomenon in relativistic physics". So which one is it? Time travelling into future is fully supported by theoretical physics. The article claims something that is wrong and then it contradicts itself by claiming that the future time travel is a proven phenomena. 141.138.44.114 ( talk) 21:03, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
I've removed the bibliography section since the article uses inline citations now, and has been that way for a long time. Below are all the sources from that section. Bright☀ 22:09, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
Modern medical advances in cryonics have little to nothing to do with the history of the concept of time travel. Bright☀ 17:04, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Time travel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 02:47, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
Some persistent IP address editor is trying to re-title the grandfather paradox as the "Bond paradox". This name is taken from a piece of fanfiction on the internet. It is not suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia since a self-published piece of fan fiction is not a reliable source, and even if it were, mentioning information that exists only in a single piece of fan fiction is undue weight. Editor, if you're reading this, please stop trying to insert what is presumably your fan fiction into Wikipedia. Bright☀ 10:46, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
Regarding this edit, the issue is not whether Hawking is generally reliable, but whether the source is reliable for the particular statement it's supporting. I don't agree that it is, because it doesn't appear to support the statement (or perhaps it just needs clarification?), and because it presents one perspective as absolute fact (compare for example this source). Nikkimaria ( talk) 16:08, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Time travel has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Add 'time travel theories' Theory 1: If one is to travel back in time, it is impossible for their actions to affect the future in any way, as the future/present is already set. This means that their actions have no consequences in the past. They could go back in time to kill their grandparent, but they are prevented from doing so in some way.
Theory 2: If one is to travel back in time, their actions create an alternate timeline, where the events can be drastically different, or have unnoticeable details changed(for example, an alternate timeline could be created by flicking a switch on, or more noticeably, murdering someone).
Theory 3: Similar to theory 1, the present is set and unchangeable, so your past self can be killed and you would remain alive, as you are the one in the present.
Theory 4: The actions of one who has travelled to the past create a new reality, the one everyone experiences in the present. Only the people who travelled back in time to change the future would know of the old past. Everyone else would have different memories of a changed past. This theory is similar to the movie X-Men: Days of Future Past. Roganliv ( talk) 02:32, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Time travel has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
At the end the first paragraph of "Absence time travelers from the future" where it talks about "a region of spacetime that is warped...", add this sentence: "Kurt Vonnegut explored this idea in his novel "The End of Eternity." 2601:1C0:8100:B4E3:F51E:5AA:C039:5EAF ( talk) 20:13, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
Kurt Vonnegut was not the author of "The End of Eternity". Issac Asimov is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.0.216.102 ( talk) 21:48, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
Hi, I think we are all time travellers. We are all from the 'past' right? as soon as you think, the time has passed. We are also moving forward in time, no one stop! The only thing is, some people may travel a little faster than others such as the people work on the airplane or outer space.
I have now a question if anyone can answer me. Please email me on sendittomequick@hotmail.com: I am not a physicist, if I swing my arm with speed which is attached to my body, should my arm be present in a different time as my body does? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sendittomequick ( talk • contribs) 21:17, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
Forward time travel, outside the usual sense of the perception of time, is an extensively-observed phenomenon and well-understood within the framework of special relativity and general relativity", and more in-depth in the appropriate sections. Bright☀ 10:24, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
What people are calling "forward time travel" is really no such thing. If I get on a spaceship and travel near light speed for a century, I will return to the earth hardly aged at all but everyone on earth will be 100 years gone or older... did I travel forward in time? no. I did not cease to exist in the present moment at any point in my journey... but I was not changing at the normal rate of earthbound changes is all. it may SEEM like I traveled to the future but I just aged slower, not that different from traveling in cryogenic suspension. Jiohdi ( talk) 01:55, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
Jiohdi correction of forward time travel does improve the article. It improves it by correcting it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.0.216.102 ( talk) 21:53, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
Those who have them want me to think that particle accelerators are actually time machines. There is even a documentary called "The World's First Time Machine" ( https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0867212/) which suggests that they are only able to receive messages from the future using their time machines. I posted about it on the reddit "conspiracy" sub ( https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy) and now believe that everyone but me already know about the existence of time machine(s). Might want to update the article with information about real life time machine(s) or mention something like "if they exist, they are classified...". Otherwise even articles labeled "good" like this one - /info/en/?search=Deep_biosphere - shouldn't be believed. By the way, I noticed that the article about particle accelerators is not labeled "good" ( /info/en/?search=Particle_accelerator). ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.57.84.115 ( talk) 05:52, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 |
I wrote that the parallel universe version necessarly breaks symmetry between universes. To me it was kind of obvious when I wrote it.
But now that I'm thinking about it, I'm not so sure. Does it make any sense to consider an operation that would switch between two alternate universes ?? I doubt it would, unless you consider some kind of a meta-universe that includes all alternate universes. Which is kind of weird.
Therefore, if someone removes all remarks concerning the breaking of symetry in the article, I would understand.
-- Grondilu ( talk) 16:37, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Another way of interpreting the parallel universe theory is to say that you travel across to a universe where it's present or 'now' .is. 5 seconds ago. That is to say their universe is identical to ours as it was in the past.
It's not the most popular of the theories among many because it questions whether or not we can really call this time travel.
“The time traveler who journeys to 1001 is not traveling back to 1001 at all, as the traditional conception of time travel would seem to require; rather, it is more precise to think of his traveling across to 1001” Abbruzzese 2001
By getting rid of reverse cause and effect, haven't we basically got rid of time travel? Well, no. We may well travel ‘across’ time not 'backwards' but this other universe (which up until our arrival is the same in .every. respect to our own) could in fact be thought of as a ‘present’ version of the past. So rather than questioning the existence of other universes, this argument means we may well need to redefine what time travel exactly .is.
STEVEN ROBERT GILL — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.30.25.224 ( talk) 15:31, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
Thinking about this further, you could in theory add a fifth animation on the main page representing this alternate interpretation of time travel. Someone will have to do it on my behalf since I haven't got the first clue as to how you go about doing it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.30.25.224 ( talk) 16:14, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
If time travel is possible, and you do travel to the past, then you already have been in the past and it's a part of the present already. For whatever reason, if you travel to the past to change something that contributed to the present as you know it, you can't, because it didn't get changed. From the perspective of the present, events in the past are immutable, and the most a time traveler could accomplish is to create the future that he knows already exists. Nothing else can happen because it didn't happen. No paradox, no causality issues.
Personally, I think time travel is impossible due to the conservation of mass/energy. Something sent into the past would look like destruction of mass/energy in the present and creation of mass/energy in the past. Jlodman ( talk) 05:29, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
From the lead section:
Why arguably? I thought this effect had been experimentally confirmed (albeit, given current technology, by only minute amounts). 86.179.118.226 ( talk) 21:58, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
I meant "skipping" as in actually not being physically present in the intervening years, like in "Back to the Future" where the DeLorean just vanishes from one time and place and appears in another, a pretty common convention in sci-fi time travel. In relativity even if you traveled 500 years into the future in Earth's frame in only 1/10 of a second of your own time, in the Earth's frame your ship would still be present at every moment in those 500 years, it's just that all processes aboard your ship would be running incredibly slow in that frame. Anyway, "in principle" would be OK with me, though I'd suggest "possible in principle" rather than "in principle possible", I think it's the more common phrase (and the two p's in a row sounds a little awkward). Hypnosifl ( talk) 00:01, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
To reduce the length of this article, perhaps the section of ideas from fiction should be merged into the related article Time travel in fiction. That article has taken a science fiction history approach to the subject, which perhaps could be nicely complemented by the approach taken in THIS article. ChrisBaker ( talk) 17:31, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
The article is currently tagged as too long, and indeed I think it is.
In order to shorten the article, I think we shoud discuss which parts should stay in it, and which part should be put in a separate article.
Time travel is still a very imaginary experiment. Actually science fiction is by far the most common place for time travel to occur. Therefore, I think the ideas from fiction should be the most part of the article, and it should be one of the first sections. Rigourus science hypothesis should be regarded as digressions, and should be put at the end of the article, or in a separate article.
-- Grondilu ( talk) 16:47, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
i have heard somewhere that if a train travels at the speed of 7 rounds of earth in a sec it would go 100 years forward in just 1 week.is it possible in future?can a train can travel at that much speed on earthronitd 09:28, 25 March 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ronitd ( talk • contribs)
I highly doubt a train can sustain such a speed without overheating. Even if a train could be that fast it would not go forward in time. A train ride with that speed would be like arriving at your destination the time you went aboard the train. . . . I guess? Matthew Goldsmith 22:11, 27 March 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lightylight ( talk • contribs)
According the the grandfather paradox if I were to travel to the past to kill my grandfather and succeed I would have never existed in the first place. Killing my grandfather would result in my parents never being born and without any parents to give birth to me I wouldn't exist. According to fatalism what has already happened cannot be changed because it was fated to happen. Since my grandfather had married, raised my parent, and my parent raised me, I cannot kill my grandfather. He was fated to live so he will live regardless of any murder attempt. Matthew Goldsmith 22:33, 27 March 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lightylight ( talk • contribs)
I agree. If time travelling is possible it means the travelling subject/object would have to be immune to causing events that cause his/its non-existence in the future.
The Tourism in Time section contains various suggested reasons why time travelers, if they exist, might not be visible to us. However the text does not mention a very compelling reason why we would not see time travelers, even if time travel in the future is very common. This is the fact that travelers, in selecting the time that they wish to travel back to, would have to choose the very time in history which we occupy, to a tollerance of better than +/- 5.3 x 10 -44 second, the time taken by light to traverse the Planck Length. This is the "thickness of the present" on the historical time-line. It is the amount by which an object in front of you would have to move ahead or behind you in time, in order to fade from view. So if the travelers are further in the past or the future than this, we will not see them. Consequently there could be many trillions of time travelers on Earth, not one of which would we have any realistic chance of ever seeing. It is not sufficient for time machine operators to just select the year, month and day as in popular fiction. They have to "get it right" to the nearest 53 nano-pico-pico-picoseconds. Enough time travelers to pack-fill the entire solar system, all conveniently heading for the very second we occupy, and shooting with an accuracy of +/- half a second, -- would not have a single success. Yet the Article has no mention of this very major explanation for their absence. ( 204.112.72.203 ( talk) 20:07, 8 April 2011 (UTC))
1.. The model explains the question that, until now, any 6 year old kid could always have used to shoot down other models: "If the cosmos is infinite, then what is it expanding out into?" Answer: the hypersphere isnt expanding; the whole shooting match stays the same size. 2.. Prediction: Expect the rate of expansion of the 3D cosmos to be increasing. However this will not last. 3.. The 3D expansion has nothing to do with gravity! It takes place at 90 degrees to that! All that gravity will do, is pull material around the circumferance of the ring, to create a "diamond ring" concentration at one place on the ring. The actual expansion is driven by the central hyperelectrostatic force which generates the field! 4.. All the talk of the cosmos expanding til the lights go out, is misconceived. It also fails to answer the 6-year-old kid. The lights will come back on again as the ring passes over the equator and eventually shrinks towards the south pole. 5.. The 3D cosmos Bangs (ejected from north pole) and Crunches (falls into south pole ) endlessly. However the 4D hypershpere has always existed. Next time round, we are all antimatter, coming the other way! 6.. There is probably no Freewill. This is because the lines of force (=strings) are pretty stationary (although they might move a bit). This means that a time traveler who manages to bend back his lines of force so he can visit the Past, would not be able to change much. Moreover he would not get the inclination to do so, as the particles in his brain are also strings (lines of force)connecting the past to the future. If however he did manage to make changes, things would work their way back to how it was, as the strings settle into their usual positions again. This explains every time-travel paradox. It should have occured to physicists that, as there is only 1 reality, these paradoxes were arising out of Misconception. 7.. Parallel 3D universes are concentric rings one following behind the other as the pole repeatedly ejects them. They are therefore seperated in time, but they each have pretty much the same history. 8... From time to time our 3D space fills with antimatter galaxies which leave a few strange particles here. This is just an antimatter ring passing thru. The galaxies will vanish again.
As you can see, I'm an independent thinker. I've had this model on the internet for some years, although its down at the moment. Now...is there anything this model doesn't explain? Over to you! I'm also Valhalan; I'll sign myself properly this time :-) ( Valhalan ( talk) 19:39, 9 April 2011 (UTC))
I'd like to offer for consideration by those maintaining this page the following external link to an essay titled 'On the Impossibility of Time Travel':
http://www.fqxi.org/data/essay-contest-files/Smith_IOTT6.cwk.pdf
Thank you. JCNSmith ( talk) 16:16, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
Okay. Sort of expected this reply, but wanted to run it up the flagpole. Thank you for taking the time to look it over and provide this constructive reply. I'm personally convinced that we're overdue for a change of paradigm in our thinking about the nature of time, but this isn't the place for that debate. Thanks again. JCNSmith ( talk) 02:57, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
The only way time travel can be true is if the age and knowledge of the traveler remain unchanged. Concerning time travel this is the most important law. Therefore we are NOT traveling forward through time but only experiencing an quantum instant called "now". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tpculp ( talk • contribs) 13:51, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
Redoc continues to add an External link ( http://lighttrap.codeplex.com/ ) to the See also section, which is for internal wiki links. Also, he has made NO case for inclusion of the link, merely pointing on user talk pages to somebody's general musings about time (at http://code.msdn.microsoft.com/lighttrap ). I am removing it again at least until until he explicates HERE at least ONE reason for inclusion. Being able to locate an image in space and time does not make it an example of time travel, not does its continued existence over time. -- JimWae ( talk) 17:25, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
In this section, should there be a concern of undue weight WP:UNDUE being given to claims of violating any laws of physics. I mean if it is one researcher is making such claims versus the mainstream view, then does it deserve an entire paragraph? ---- Steve Quinn ( talk) 01:35, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
The article should include a definition of "timeline" as used in the article, since that word is used frequently in the article and has a specialized meaning.
Obankston ( talk) 00:31, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
"In addition, the second law of thermodynamics only states that entropy should increase in systems which are isolated from interactions with the external world, so Igor Novikov (creator of the Novikov self-consistency principle) has argued that in the case of macroscopic objects like the watch whose worldlines form closed loops, the outside world can expend energy to repair wear/entropy that the object acquires over the course of its history, so that it will be back in its original condition when it closes the loop."
Scientists have proved than photons cannot go faster than light and so this method is impossible. http://news.discovery.com/space/time-travel-impossible-photon-110724.html 175.142.167.192 ( talk) 13:54, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Sorry, I think "On the other hand, the second law of thermodynamics is understood by modern physicists to be a statistical law rather than an absolute one, so spontaneous reversals of entropy or failure to increase in entropy are not impossible, just improbable (see for example the fluctuation theorem)." is improper to describe the abrasion of a watch, because in "real world" no law will predict different results from classical ones. Ltysdd ( talk) 07:54, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
18:09, 15 October 2011 (UTC) the Talmud relates that Among the Tannaim, the generations of rabbinic teachers whose work is recorded in the Mishnah, Rabbi Akiba is generally considered the towering personality. Approximately one hundred years after his death, a legend is reported by R. Judah bar Ezekiel (219-299 C.E.), in the name of his teacher and sometime traveling companion, Ray: - Rav Judah said in the name of Rav, - God translated Moses in time so that Moses himself attended a lecture given by Rabbi Akiva. story is told of Rabbi Akiva that when Moses ascended Mount Sinai, he saw that God was putting little taggim (the small 'crowns' on the top of the letters in the Torah scroll) on top of the Torah that was to be presented to the Jews at Mount Sinai. Moses asked God to explain the meaning of these taggim. God explained that in the future a man by the name of Akiva ben Joseph will reveal what these signs mean. - - Moses asked God to reveal to him this man and so God replied to Moses to turn around. When Moses turned around he saw a sage surrounded by many rows of students listening eagerly to this man's teaching. The greater students sat in front and the lesser in the rear. Moses, being a very humble man, took a seat in the eighth row and began listening. Rabbi Akiba taught a certain law and the students asked him what is the source, he replied that it came down to us from our great master Moses. At this lecture, Rabbi Akiva stated that all that he was teaching originated with Moses - yet Moses himself heard these matters for the first time! - Moses came back and questioned God, if there is such a great man like that why give the Torah through me? God answered, "Be silent, this is my will." (Menachoth 29b) - - One can then understand this in this way : Rabbi Akiva indeed originated the material, and then this fact allowed the material to become known to Moses via God prior to Rabbi Akiva's birth, at Mt. Sinai, creating again a non-causal loop.IF so this is the first time paradox story. - - The means by which at Sinai Moses was made aware of all the halachot which would eventually be developed is generally taken to be via direct transmission from God, as was the case with the rest of the Torah. However the means by which Moses is made aware of those matters discovered by Rabbi Akiva may have been by the bringing of Moses forward in time to participate in Rabbi Akiva's lectures. - ( see Rabbi Akiba's Crowns: Postmodern Discourse and the Cost of Rabbinic Reading - by Laurence L. Edwards http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0411/is_4_49/ai_68738707/) - eli eshed The earliest time travell to the past known is FAUST THE SECOND PART " by Johann Wolfgang von Goethe. Part of it was already published in 1827 and completly in 1832 . And in it there is what seems to Be a time travel of Faust to Ancient Greece. It is possible though that it is a journey to a parallel world of ancient Greece in which Greece gods still exist.The point in not very clear probably since the comcept of time travell to the past was not very clear to Goethe himself, he was just the inventor of it.... Time travell to te future on the other hand is ancient concept which exist from antiquity. eli eshed — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.69.168.53 (talk)
Hans Christian Andersen Journey on Foot from Holmen's Canal to the East Point of Amager". a journey to the future of 2129.
MAY 1838 Hans Christian Andersen The Goloshes of Fortune - http://hca.gilead.org.il/goloshes.html - which is among other things about time travel to the past to Denemark of medieval times.After that the hero make a space journey. 1845 Hans Christian Andersen Lykkens Blomst (The flower of happiness). Magic comedy in two acts,C.A. Reitzel Publishers, 1845. this is a time travel play in which a 19 century dane is taken by magick to inhabite the bodies of a ,medival prince and a 18 century poet and eventuall returned to his time and place. eli eshed . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.69.168.53 ( talk) 01:15, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
This article is a bit ridiculous. Rather than focusing on the hypothetical, why not focus on the physical realities we know about first?! Nowhere in the article do I see it mentioned that light actually travels in time. Per definition, light travels in time. For the light, no time passes, and only the surrounds seems to speed up, which is in fact what I understand to be time travel. Albeit, only in one direction: forward. And with a speed limit. Doesn't anybody else think this relevant to mention in the first or second paragraph even?! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.215.115.224 ( talk) 09:11, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
They found nothing new. If Cohen/Glashow is right, then the OPERA results are inconsistent; the ICARUS replication, despite the media hoopla a month after the paper came out, means nothing. Check the one line on ICARUS in the OPERA neutrino anomaly.
Thom5738 ( talk) 06:07, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps the best example of forward time travel (at a rate faster than normal of course) is the Ender's Game series by Orson Scott Card. Throughout the series, the concept of Time Dilation at Relativistic Speeds (Speeds very near, but certainly not at, the speed of light) is taken into account. Many of the plots in the series feature this manner of time travel; examples include the Earth fleet in the Third Bugger War in Ender's Game, Ender's travels from planet to planet that allowed him to experience 3000 years of Human History in about 20, the Lusitania Fleet and more. It should be noted that this sort of time travel is scientifically sound. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Belac Athanasius ( talk • contribs) 01:25, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
I was glad to hear in this Sean Carroll's conference a nice part about the compatibility between the concepts of free will and determinism. Here's a quote:
People often think determinism is in conflict with free will so they might think it is not pertinent to talk about free will in this article about time travel. I believe this is wrong: there is a problem between time travel and free will, but not between free will and determinism. Therefore, a dedicated section about time travel and free will would be pertinent I think, and could use a link to this conference as a starting source reference. -- Grondilu ( talk) 16:09, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
May I add The Bible Book of Genesis to Literature_timeline? In Genesis, God created the universe in 7 days despite it being billions of years old and God created things out of order. The movie Time Bandits puts forth that he used time travel. I'm not going to add it without discussion, but I think it seriously merrits adding. Think so too? Are you ready for IPv6? ( talk) 23:13, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
Given that all matter does move through time constantly and moves through time at different rates, the introductory statement that time travel is simply moving from point A to point B on the timeline then questioning whether or not it is possible to do so is mistaken.
The bulk of the article seems to focus around the question of "if we could travel back in time, would we be able to experience historical events?" Physics has already shown that that is not possible. This was firmly established as soon as Einstein demonstrated space-time. Because physical laws are time symmetrical, there is no difference between moving backwards on a time-line or forwards on a time-line; the physcical results are the same. We do not have the ability to tell the difference between objects moving in opposite directions along the time-line, only if they are moving at different speeds. Our GPS satellite system proves Einstein's theory on time dilation and disproves any fictional concepts or hypothesis about time working any other way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.213.51.98 ( talk) 23:40, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
I was very surprised to see no mention of the most likely first form of time travel, which would involve super cooling. A partical with enough energy taken away from it will infact by moving in space time at a slower rate. Hence time travel — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.207.129.95 ( talk) 15:31, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
The "science" of this article leans more toward speculation bordering on science fiction, yet presents it in such a way that it is hard to distinguish speculation from proven science. Forward time travel has been proven experimentally (any modern physics textbook will recount the details for you), while time travel into the passed is purely speculative and indeed runs contrary to conservation of energy. This article should be cleaned up to differentiate speculation (even that done by respected theorists) from mainstream science. 129.63.129.196 ( talk) 19:35, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
With that graphic, wouldn't it also mean that once his double steps out of the doorway that if someone tried to restrain him from going through, there is no way they can succeed in doing so? 66.189.38.183 ( talk) 01:32, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
The Time Travel page should also include insights on stopping time in one place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.231.27.203 ( talk) 20:51, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
Freezing time very important to be mentioned in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rhalawan ( talk • contribs) 11:05, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Is there a way to work this article in here? It looks like relatively new information (2011) with fairly wide press coverage.
http://gajitz.com/quantum-entanglement-suggests-time-travel-is-possible/
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2011/01/timelike-entanglement/ Damonthesis ( talk) 02:29, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
I remove one section about uncited references to time travel in fiction and one in a subtly different form pops up. the section, 'Ideas from fiction' and the subsection 'Rules of time travel' both are largely uncited and contain more than a little
Synthesis. We need to start seeing less editorial extemporizing and more references where reliable sources have made these connections/drawn these conclusions.
Without it, some significant parts of these sections are going to be removed as per our guidelines. -
Jack Sebastian (
talk)
03:03, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
Want to know if time-travel is possible within your lifetime? Easy. Just plan on meeting yourself at Noon tomorrow at your home, for example. If you show up and you meet yourself, then woohoo, you just proved that time travel will exist, and you will have access to it. Of course, if you don't meet yourself, this could mean that you died before sending yourself back. B) the cost is too much, and you wont be able to do it. C) you change your mind about meeting yourself and telling yourself to masturbate less frequently.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.70.202.28 ( talk) 18:31, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
Can we write in the article about if it's possible?-- 78.156.109.166 ( talk) 15:46, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
Would this be a defining aspect of a character worthy of categorizing? CensoredScribe ( talk) 04:12, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
In the paradoxes section, there is this statement: "On the other hand, Stephen Hawking has argued that even if the MWI is correct, we should expect each time traveler to experience a single self-consistent history, so that time travelers remain within their own world rather than traveling to a different one." But then in the discussion of the theories as played out in literature, in the Type 3 universe, this type of scenario isn't talked about. 108.84.252.8 ( talk) 13:38, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Frequently seen in fiction: Stacey puts Jim into a trance and sends him back 20 years. For Jim, 5 minutes later, while walking down the street, Jim stubs his toe. We see that Stacey has been monitoring Jim for that 5 minute interval without incident, then future Jim moans with the pain that his past self experiences from stubbing his toe - as if future and past are two different places which are "synchronized" so that the 5 minutes after Jim's arrival in the past some how correlates in a causative way with Jim's existence in the future. Or Ed goes into the past and 4 days later destroys the MacGuffin Box, then we see those who remained in the future waiting and then voila 4 days after Ed's departure to the past, the MacGuffin Box disappears. Does this dopey plot device have an official name? "Dopey Synchrony" ? MistySpock ( talk) 02:31, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
The story in mahabharatha specifically say about the speed difference of time in different dimensions. Which can be compared easily with time dilation in modern physics. Thus the topic is inappropriate in the context. Please review and take necessary measures. Vishnujithts ( talk) 14:06, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
Given the length and level of detail of this article, the lead is woefully inadequate. The lead should be a summary of the article that should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article by establishing context, explaining why the topic is notable, and summarizing the most important points, as stated in WP:LEAD. That's not what it's doing now. Requesting assistance and feedback for improvements to lead. BlackHades ( talk) 20:08, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 3 external links on
Time travel. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers. — cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 19:50, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Time travel. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 19:20, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
I think that this article needs a history section (If not) And the improvement is similar to Albert Einstein's Theory of Relativity with Time Travel would be perfect because it starts with that. DatNuttyWikipedian ( talk) 07:55, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
This was copied from
User talk:BruceGrubb
|
---|
Note: I have undone the following of your recent edits per wp:unsourced and wp:nor ( [1], [2], [3], [4]). Please read these aspects of Wikipedia policies. - DVdm ( talk) 19:18, 14 May 2016 (UTC) |
The article says in the lead: "traveling to an arbitrary point in time has a very limited support in theoretical physics", while in the following text it says: "one-way time travel into the future via time dilation is a proven phenomenon in relativistic physics". So which one is it? Time travelling into future is fully supported by theoretical physics. The article claims something that is wrong and then it contradicts itself by claiming that the future time travel is a proven phenomena. 141.138.44.114 ( talk) 21:03, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
I've removed the bibliography section since the article uses inline citations now, and has been that way for a long time. Below are all the sources from that section. Bright☀ 22:09, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
Modern medical advances in cryonics have little to nothing to do with the history of the concept of time travel. Bright☀ 17:04, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Time travel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 02:47, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
Some persistent IP address editor is trying to re-title the grandfather paradox as the "Bond paradox". This name is taken from a piece of fanfiction on the internet. It is not suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia since a self-published piece of fan fiction is not a reliable source, and even if it were, mentioning information that exists only in a single piece of fan fiction is undue weight. Editor, if you're reading this, please stop trying to insert what is presumably your fan fiction into Wikipedia. Bright☀ 10:46, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
Regarding this edit, the issue is not whether Hawking is generally reliable, but whether the source is reliable for the particular statement it's supporting. I don't agree that it is, because it doesn't appear to support the statement (or perhaps it just needs clarification?), and because it presents one perspective as absolute fact (compare for example this source). Nikkimaria ( talk) 16:08, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Time travel has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Add 'time travel theories' Theory 1: If one is to travel back in time, it is impossible for their actions to affect the future in any way, as the future/present is already set. This means that their actions have no consequences in the past. They could go back in time to kill their grandparent, but they are prevented from doing so in some way.
Theory 2: If one is to travel back in time, their actions create an alternate timeline, where the events can be drastically different, or have unnoticeable details changed(for example, an alternate timeline could be created by flicking a switch on, or more noticeably, murdering someone).
Theory 3: Similar to theory 1, the present is set and unchangeable, so your past self can be killed and you would remain alive, as you are the one in the present.
Theory 4: The actions of one who has travelled to the past create a new reality, the one everyone experiences in the present. Only the people who travelled back in time to change the future would know of the old past. Everyone else would have different memories of a changed past. This theory is similar to the movie X-Men: Days of Future Past. Roganliv ( talk) 02:32, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Time travel has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
At the end the first paragraph of "Absence time travelers from the future" where it talks about "a region of spacetime that is warped...", add this sentence: "Kurt Vonnegut explored this idea in his novel "The End of Eternity." 2601:1C0:8100:B4E3:F51E:5AA:C039:5EAF ( talk) 20:13, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
Kurt Vonnegut was not the author of "The End of Eternity". Issac Asimov is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.0.216.102 ( talk) 21:48, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
Hi, I think we are all time travellers. We are all from the 'past' right? as soon as you think, the time has passed. We are also moving forward in time, no one stop! The only thing is, some people may travel a little faster than others such as the people work on the airplane or outer space.
I have now a question if anyone can answer me. Please email me on sendittomequick@hotmail.com: I am not a physicist, if I swing my arm with speed which is attached to my body, should my arm be present in a different time as my body does? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sendittomequick ( talk • contribs) 21:17, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
Forward time travel, outside the usual sense of the perception of time, is an extensively-observed phenomenon and well-understood within the framework of special relativity and general relativity", and more in-depth in the appropriate sections. Bright☀ 10:24, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
What people are calling "forward time travel" is really no such thing. If I get on a spaceship and travel near light speed for a century, I will return to the earth hardly aged at all but everyone on earth will be 100 years gone or older... did I travel forward in time? no. I did not cease to exist in the present moment at any point in my journey... but I was not changing at the normal rate of earthbound changes is all. it may SEEM like I traveled to the future but I just aged slower, not that different from traveling in cryogenic suspension. Jiohdi ( talk) 01:55, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
Jiohdi correction of forward time travel does improve the article. It improves it by correcting it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.0.216.102 ( talk) 21:53, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
Those who have them want me to think that particle accelerators are actually time machines. There is even a documentary called "The World's First Time Machine" ( https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0867212/) which suggests that they are only able to receive messages from the future using their time machines. I posted about it on the reddit "conspiracy" sub ( https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy) and now believe that everyone but me already know about the existence of time machine(s). Might want to update the article with information about real life time machine(s) or mention something like "if they exist, they are classified...". Otherwise even articles labeled "good" like this one - /info/en/?search=Deep_biosphere - shouldn't be believed. By the way, I noticed that the article about particle accelerators is not labeled "good" ( /info/en/?search=Particle_accelerator). ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.57.84.115 ( talk) 05:52, 21 March 2020 (UTC)