Time Travel Paradox

Recommended Videos

Dr Jones

Join the Bob Dylan Fangroup!
Jun 23, 2010
819
0
0
Merkavar said:
anything to do with timetravel is to complicated as ends in a paradox. except maybe traveling back in time as an observer.
That is true (though observers would undoubtedly do some shit too), but it isnt necesarilly true. This all depends on if "Novikov's self consistent theory" proves to be right. Basically what it says is that if you travel back in time to burn a house and you return, nothing will have changed. That house burning has always been a part of history. So at your age of 4 you were there too burning a house. So if John Wilkes was about to kill Abraham and you could stop him, you couldnt. It would be physically impossible due to the laws of physics (according to this theory), basically you would end up fucking up, though in the end that was a part of history.
ALTHOUGH this creates the question "Who started it then?", if you were Booth and went back in time to kill Lincoln (which had already happened in your youth), then who killed him first? This is what's called the Bootstrap paradox (i believe).

Of course its just theories. I like the self consistent one. But the generally believed butterfly is likely the truer.
 

Zenn3k

New member
Feb 2, 2009
1,323
0
0
The Virgo said:
Zenn3k said:
Valagetti said:
Why do people always reference killing Hilter in relation to time travel? I can think of some 'worse' people, Stalin, Khan... Michael Bay. In all seriousness, humans cannot bear our minds around time travel, its just how we process things. Because whenever I start up a talk, it always ends up turning into a subject about singularities.
Yeah we know how to do time travel, exceed or match light speed. But the conseqences to killing Michael Bay or whatever are out of our reach.
While killing Michael Bay would benefit everyone...actually the killing of Stalin would have likely causes Hitler to win the 2nd World War.

He would have easily invaded and conquered Russia, and not being attacked from both sides, would have probably made landfall in the United States sometime around 1949.
Agreed ... for the most part.

Yes, without Stalin, Hitler would have probably rolled right into Moscow, since there wouldn't have been Stalingrad ... well, there would have been a city there, but the reason why it was so important for the Russians to hold the city was because for the city named after the leader to have fallen into the hands of enemy would bad for morale.

So without Stalin, the battle of Stalingrad would have probably been another city battle while the Russian army fortified in Moscow.

However, I doubt Hitler would have invaded the United States. It is totally impossible for a nation whose (according to http://www.tacitus.nu/historical-atlas/population/germany.htm) population in 1939 was 8.7 million to occupy a nation the size as the US. And Japan wouldn't have been able to be of much help either to hold a nation several hundred thousand miles in area. It is totally impossible.
Yes, in that respect you are correct...but Hitler wasn't exactly the type to let a little thing like "plausibility" stand in his way.

In fact, early dictations by Hitler, which were locked away for a long time, proved that after he took Russia and England, he was planning an attack on America. He was even building "America-Bombers" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amerika_Bomber

So the intent to attack America directly existed...being able to occupy the US might have been a logistical impossibility, but that doesn't mean the Nazi wouldn't have tried.
 

ShindoL Shill

Truely we are the Our Avatars XI
Jul 11, 2011
21,802
0
0
Karma168 said:
TrilbyWill said:
exactly, its actually...

Damn Ninja'd. Anyway Doctor Who has an mechanic for this; there are fluid and fixed points in time, the fluid ones can be changed but the fixed ones have to happen (see; pompeii episode).

WW2 would likely be fixed, Hitler maybe not. This means you go back kill snd kill Hitler, WW2 would still happen; someone else would just take Hitlers place, someone then goes back to kill him (thus leaving hitler alone) and Hitler takes over. As the timeline changes the target changes. There would be no way to avoid WW2.
my way you might be able to. because the Princip was the last assassin, he had the one chance (outside the cafe) to kill the archduke. kill him and you prevent WW1 and therefore WW2.
 

crudus

New member
Oct 20, 2008
4,415
0
0
Mr. 47 said:
I was thinking the other day after watching the new Torchwood (and wondering when the new Doctor Who will come out) about time travel, when I thought of something: If you go back in time for the purpose of changing an event, that would create a paradox.
The very first part is definitely true, but as a Doctor Who fan you should know that whole line(also, new episode this Saturday). In all seriousness, the universe seems to have a lot of "built in" paradox "fail safes". They are weird things the universe does to prevent a certain law from being broken. For example lets say there is a ship traveling 1 mph under the speed of light. A person would then think "hey, I could just run from one end of the ship to the other and go faster than light". No, various effects prevent this. I am sure the universe would have a paradox "fail safe" for time travel as well.
 

The Artificially Prolonged

Random Semi-Frequent Poster
Jul 15, 2008
2,755
0
0
You cannot go back in time without creating paradoxes, as virtually anything you do in the past could be considered a paradox. As a wise man Abe Simpson said, "if you ever go back in time, don't step on anything!"
 

thejdcole

New member
Nov 13, 2008
291
0
0
Elcarsh said:
thejdcole said:
500 years ago we thought that the earth was flat. I'm sure in 500 years time people will look back and laugh at our current understanding of space-time.
*slap*

The shape of the earth has been common knowledge for at least the last 2000 years. All this bullshit about people being morons who thought the earth was flat is something that was invented in the 18th century.
As much as I appreciate the slap, why does what i said matter. It is an analogy that many people will understand and can relate to. And the point that I was making had little relevance to what peoples perception of the earth 500 years ago actually was.

What I was trying to say, in case you missed it, was that at the moment I believe that our understanding and comprehension of space time is limited. And much like how science 500 years ago is far better understood and comprehended today, I believe in the future people will look back at our current understanding of time and laugh.

(But thanks for the correction, it is something I did not know, and has made for some interesting internet reading).
 

TimeLord

For the Emperor!
Legacy
Aug 15, 2008
7,508
3
43
So you want a discussion about time do you?

Point 1
[HEADING=1]The Blinovitch Limitation Effect[/HEADING]​

The Blinovitch limitation effect is a physical, real limitation which prevents time travellers from interfering with their own history. It has two manifestations, one which prevents time travellers from changing their own past, and one which prevents a time traveller from meeting themself.

The key word here is "Limitation"; that is, the effect limits the amount of interference in the past as opposed to completely prohibiting it. Although it still isn't recommended for the reasons below.

In its first form, the effect is simply a time loop. Blinovitch stated that time is non-linear, and can become circular. A time traveller attempting to change their own history, for better or worse, will simply just create a time-loop, where his or her actions in the past are pre-destined and in fact have already happened.

Basically making the travellers future more "fate" oriented as events are destined to happen the same way again and again.

Time loops are paradoxical in nature, and to occur, time travel across time-streams must have happened. Of course, visiting your own personal past is only possible by crossing your own time-stream.

The Blinovitch limitation effect also has a second form, in this scenario it manifests itself as a force which prevents time travellers from interfering directly with their own past selves.

Basically, someone can't re-do something they have already done.

The force which intervenes may take any known form, manipulating chaotic and quantum variables in a weak manifestation, and manipulating explosive energies in a more violent manifestation. This form of the Blinovitch limitation is related to time eddies, a phenomenon which occurs when localised time runs in reverse, or circles round and round in a whirlpool like fashion.

It may be surprising to learn that both forms of the Blinovitch limitation effect can be circumnavigated.

To cancel out the time-loop in the first instance, it is necessary for an external time-traveller not previously connected with the time-loop to interfere with the creation of the time-loop. This may sound like interfering with a past-event, but there is a subtle difference here. A time-loop is not a real event. Once a time-loop is destroyed, the energy it had consumed to create its alternative reality is released back into the real universe.

Note this time that the destruction of a time-loop is a real event, and any attempts to change this will prevented by the second form of the Blinovitch limitation effect.

However, the second Blinovitch limitation effect can itself be avoided. The trick is simple: cross time-streams. The Blinovitch limitation effect only occurs as a result of a time-traveller meeting himself in his own time-stream. By meeting oneself in another time-stream, the effect does not take place.

Basically, in the event a time paradox...
[sup]sorry, I mean:[/sup]

[HEADING=1]TIME PARADOX[/HEADING]
ahem...

...the event can still be altered based on the circumstances to correct the The Blinovitch Limitation Effect.
and

Point 2
[HEADING=1]Travel to the Past[/HEADING]​

"Every point in time has its alternatives...The future can be shaped - the actions of the present change the future. To a small extent a man can change the course of history. It takes a being of ... almost unlimited power to destroy the future."

When travelling to areas in your personal past, the question most often asked is, "has time travelled already happened?". This is another way of asking whether or not the past in immutable. For example, has it already happened in history that a time-time traveller from the future has travelled back, or does travelling back change history? The two alternatives are usually summed up thus:

1] Time travel has already happened -- the past destination is really an extension of your present. Nothing you do will change history, and everything you do will fullfill history, barring abnormal interference. This is also described as a soft time-loop.

2] Time travel has not already happened. In this case the traveller risks the possibility of creating an alternative universe.

The distinction is far from academic. Let us consider an example:


Is there one version of this event? Do they agree on the details? Does Andy see Borak from the future? Certainly Borak should see Andy. Whilst travelling in time you will find that a meeting such as the one described above simply cannot happen. Basically Andy would come and go, and Borak would not be there. Borak then would not be able to set his coordinate to day 100 12:10. In fact, the nearest coordinate would be day 101 12:00. This prevents the potential paradox mentioned above. The enforcement of time-streams creates urgency, as one cannot wait around and then act on an emergency distress call, as it may well preclude the ability to answer.

Without a Time Machine enforcing travel to within time-streams, the following may of happen:


If Borak were to attempt to contact Andy, he would find himself up against the Blinovitch limitation effect. As Andy has arrived "first" (spatial-temporal destination is a sub-topic for a later thread) his version of the events are immutable. And since he didn't see Borak, Andy cannot do anything to change that.

To summarise, the past is ordinarily immutable. What has happened has happened. Everything someone does in the present is recorded in the past. So what happens when someone tries to change history? Various phenomena occur as you battle with time. If someone attempts to change the past of their own time-stream, the Blinovitch limitation effect comes into play. If someone attempts to change the past of someone else's time-stream, they will find this immutable. It is possible, as the quote above suggests, for a being or machine of extraordinary power to distort space-time so much as to force the creation of an alternative reality which becomes the default reality for all time-travellers. Basically creating a parallel universe. (ala Back to the Future 2)
Both of those pieces are from these threads below.
I'll just leave these links here.

The Blinovitch Limitation Effect [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.201912-A-Discussion-about-Time-The-Blinovitch-Limitation-Effect]
Time Streams/Illusion of Time [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.203130-A-Discussion-about-Time-The-Illusion-of-Time-Time-Streams]
Travel to the Past [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.204135-A-Discussion-about-Time-Travel-to-the-Past]
Travel to the Future [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.208546-A-Discussion-about-Time-Travel-to-the-Future]
Time Tracks/Time Friction [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.218644-A-Discussion-about-Time-Time-Tracks-Time-Friction]
Time-Loops [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.224218-A-Discussion-about-Time-Time-Loops]
The Laws of Time [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.231707-A-Discussion-about-Time-The-Laws-of-Time]
 

F4LL3N

New member
May 2, 2011
503
0
0
The timeline you know would be different than everyone elses timeline. If you went back in time to kill Hilter, noone in the future would know about him but you. Because you are your continuous self. Pretty much a like parallel universe.

Just like if you went back and killed Einstein. Science in the future probably wouldn't be the same, but your Delorean wouldn't magically disappear. Because if you go back in time, the future becomes the past. Then if you travel back to the future, the previous future in which you built the time machine would still be the past. Atleast to you.

Time travel into the future may actually be possible. I don't know about into the past though.

EDIT: If you went back in time and killed yourself, I don't think the present you would disappear. The 'past' you would. But that would be an entirely different being. If false = paradox. Because you never existed when you built the time machine.
 

warprincenataku

New member
Jan 28, 2010
647
0
0
mesoforte said:
warprincenataku said:
The Doctor explains this in two ways, first off, some events in time are time locked and cannot be changed, these are generally large events that would cause too many problems if they were undone, like the Dalek-Timelord war or possibly, WWII.

The second is that when you are traveling, the knowledge that you have and the events that you cause are now your existence. So for example, you would be aware of the changes, but everyone else wouldn't be in the future.


So in summary, Hitler probably couldn't be killed because WWII is time locked and even if you could kill him, you would still remember the atrocities committed, but everyone else wouldn't.
Wibbly Wobbly Timey Wimey


There, I just explained time.


Couldn't have said it better myself!
Also Reavers. I can't find a good clip of reavers. Eat away at whatever causes a paradox until the paradox is resolved.