/sci/ - Science & Math

To avoid paradox, it needs to be between alternate universes, i.e., you travel to the other universe, change it and the one you travelled from remains unchanged.

Time travel is not possible.

I am literally too tired to explain this, but i'll basically give you the ultra simple conclusive version.

You can't travel backwards in time, anyone who says otherwise is retarded. You can't travel forwards in time because that potential hasn't been reached or activated or however you faggot chemists want to define the parameters of electromagnetism in context.

But you can alter the passage of time relative to your molecules by ... going fast, and shit, READ A FUCKING BOOK.

Time travelling within your own universe's timeline is like buttfucking the foundation of physical reality it is so loaded with paradoxes

I don't see how it can be a single line. Let's say you travel 20 years into the future. And then you travel back to the present. Well it doesn't make sense because the first time you traveled forward 20 years, in the future you would have been missing for 20 years. But since you went back to the present suddenly you'd be around for the 20 years you were missing.

>>4883388

What if you basically consider that everything already happened? Like if you go into the past, it already did happen.

"Heavier than air flying machines are impossible."

Get the fuck out of here you Lord Kelvins.

Time travel is impossible because the past doesn't exist.

>>4883390
One idea is that the time travel was part of the timeline all along. You wouldn't be missing in the future because you are going to travel back.

>>4883394
>basically
There's nothing basic about time travel, what the fuck are you smoking?

>>4883383
Go away, retard.

>>4883373
Most likely time travel is not possible, and even if possible, it is probably only possible on a very small scale (mass and time).
Since we do not observe time travel, no well-observed process can achieve time travel. Hence in the unlikely case that time travel is possible, it must be due to processes in extreme conditions.
Since these conditions will almost certainly be on a quantum scale, it may be possible that it happens on a linear time scale, since they may prevent from information actually going back in time; thus preventing paradoxes.

>>4883407
I wasn't even trying and i still did a better job than you.

>>4883420
>my fucking face when you're the definition of a faggot

>>4883403

But you will be missing in the immediate future

>>4883403

But wouldn't that mean we don't have free will then?

/sci/ will always be full of shitposters

>>4883438
Said the shitposter as he posted his shitpost.

Shitpostception, le comedy gold.

Le... le
le

LE... LE!?!??!?!?!?!??!?!

if youre gonna talk about this shit, understand it's sci-fi, then go pick up Timeline by Michael Crichton for some more interesting perspectives. Fiction can be a great tool in cultivating interest in principles of physics.

>>4883456

>>4883462
>Sci-fi
>Not an accurate and actuarial reflection of current scientific practices, terminologies and working theories.

Do you even america?

>>4883470

Actuarial: of or relating to the work of an actuary.

Actuary: A person who compiles and analyzes statistics and uses them to calculate insurance risks and premiums.

I thought /sci/ was immune to avatar faggots. How low have we sunk?

>>4883473
Faggot: You.

>>4883478

Incorrect.

Here's a simple causality-violating plot device that produces no paradoxes: It's a button which alters probabilities. Any series of events that leads to the button being pushed has its probability relative to other outcomes cut in half. So, for example, if you play a game in which you would normally have a 20% chance of winning (4x more likely to lose than win), and you press the button three times if you lose, you have a 2/3 chance of winning. You can use the device to communicate with the past, but I wouldn't recommend it.

And don't tell me this thread isn't about probability. Excluding multiple-timeline crap, time travel inherently fucks with probability because it's no longer possible to create an independent random-number generator. If a time traveler can know the result in advance, the random number generator's result wasn't independent. What it takes to avoid paradoxes is a self-consistent set of rules for calculating the probability of outcomes.

>>4883480
Provide evidence.

>>4883474
Just mad because it probably won't be banned whereas any other form of avatarfag would be

>>4883436
In this scenario your actions would be limited to self-consistent ones. Events that cause a paradox would have a probability of zero.

So yeah, you wouldn't really have free will.

This is just a hypothetical though. Personally I think it's extremely unlikely it's possible to send even information back in time, let alone a person.

>>4883486

The onus is on the one making the claim.

>>4883373
time is a social construct.

>>4883486
Please fuck off back to >>>/mlp/ and stop trolling /sci/

>>4883514
Please fuck off back t >>>/a/ or >>>/mu/ or wherever the fuck you came from and stop trolling /sci/

>>4883532
Ponies are for faggots, why you gotta be ponying up the place, you some kinda faggot? A faggot who likes ponies? A ponyfaggot if you will.

>>4883577
>Do not post the following outside of /b/: Trolls
>>>/b/

biology can only move in one direction, so conventional time travel is impossible

relative time travel is a proven phenomenon, which would mean "time travel" into the future is possible

>>4883373
I consider it more likely that time travel is impossible and all there is is a complete, simultaneous, unalterable timeline that we just can't see.

Both possibilities avoid the possibility of paradoxes occurring in time travel.

The branching timeline avoids paradoxes by creating a parallel for every change.
The single, linear timeline is self-consistent. Meaning even in the event that you do travel back in time, nothing you do will impact the future.


I think the latter is more fun to play around with though.

>>4883821
Please don't do that;
'time travel' is always taken to mean that some power changes the way time passes
it does not ever mean simply waiting, whatever someone does to make waiting practical.

>>4884076
>Both possibilities avoid the possibility of paradoxes occurring in time travel.

>Meaning even in the event that you do travel back in time, nothing you do will impact the future.

A single linear timeline that allows time travel is not free of the paradox issue; it is where the issue comes from.

Inventing a 'rule' to negate paradox entirely is not justified -- even less so when it negates the concept of having traveled to that time entirely.

Look, if you can go back in time but can't interact, it's just watching. And what physical law allows either (watching or not interacting)?

>>4883495
Again, what force, what law of physics makes the determination and restricts your actions?

I mean, you seem to have imagined a magical omniscient force to save the concept, but forgot that the restriction has to have something to do with physics.

>>4883373
People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint - it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly... time-y wimey... stuff.

According to entropy in the laws of thermodynamics things cant go backwards, only forwards. Entropy is always increasing. Ex: an ice cube melting or a log turning to ash as it burns. You cant magically reverse these processes.

>>4884108
With the linear, self-consistent timeline if you do travel back in time, it means that you always traveled back in time, and whatever actions you take already happened.

If I go back in time to kill Hitler, something will happen that prevents me from accomplishing that objective. Maybe I forget to account for planetary motion and stellar drift and rematerialize in open space. Maybe I forget to carry a 1 and find myself on Earth 65 million years ago, just in time to be annihilated by an asteroid. Maybe I successfully arrive in Germany in the 1916 but am struck and killed by a car as I'm walking to the Red Cross hospital in Beelitz to assassinate a woudned Adolf Hitler.

Point is SOMETHING happens that stops me from killing Hitler, because in this timeline, nobody successfully assassinated Hitler.

>>4884127
Fun Fact: The Oort Cloud is actually the frozen remains of millions of time machines and time travelers who tried to go back in time and kill Hitler.

>>4884132
lol, fucking space cadet white knights. Kirk has the right idea: fuck green bitches, get paid in more green bitches to fuck.

>>4883484
>It's a button which alters probabilities.
You're suggesting an impossible device with no grounding in physics solves the simpler question of whether time travel invites paradox?


>And don't tell me this thread isn't about probability.
>Excluding multiple-timeline crap, time travel inherently fucks with probability because it's no longer possible to create an independent random-number generator.
>If a time traveler can know the result in advance, the random number generator's result wasn't independent.
No, that has nothing whatever to do with probability; that is a simple paradox.

As long as the number generator selects the number without influence, it is generating a random number.
Your outside expectation of whether the number is UNKNOWN or not is entirely separate from the question of whether it is random.

Look at the more common time-travel scenario: someone with a listing of which horses win horse racing goes back and bets on the winners.
That he knows the winners does not mean he has influenced the race; that's why your RNG scenario doesn't prove impossibility of randomness.

You've reverted from seeing paradox as a problem to redefining it as a violation of probability. (Without noticing the innumerable other paradoxes aren't about probability.)

>>4884127
No, again you are presupposing something to solve the issue without actually bothering to find a force that guarantees it.

What you are trying to prevent (paradox) is a smaller problem than the many influences, powers, and omniscient forces you would create that force self-consistency and a single timeline.

Unless, of course, you turn to religion and just say that God monitors behavior to force just that.

I'd say that traveling to the future is more possible than to the past. You avoid the time travelers paradox if you're only talking about the future. I view time as a 1d strip that only moves in 1 direction. A strip where the next future frame is 1 planck time away. The frames that you already passed are lost forever as a certain configuration of the universe.

It is said that as you approach the speed of light, time slows down, it has been prooven. Two atomic clocks, 1 put on the ground, and another in a 747 were off by nanoseconds after one of them was flown around the planet. Thus, speed and time are related. Think about if you traveled at the speed of light towards Mars and came back at the same speed. According to general or special relativitiy or whatever you would pass time slower than those moving slower. You come back to earth, it feels like a 2 hour trip, those on earth may have endured days or months to see you. It's strange and I don't even get it. What I'm saying is, maybe time travel into the future is possible because of this experience phenomena.

I see no paradox when traveling back in time within the same universe and time line.

Assume some one's buildung a time machine and uses it to travel back to the point he got the idea to how to build a time machine which was triggered by the now arriving time traveller in the first place (because of a note or hint or something he gave his earlier self to construct it). This cycle has to be closed.

The conclusion of this is that every time travel is absolutely necessary for the things to develop in the way until the time travel takes place!

That means if you decide to travel back in time you CANNOT change a thing because you already did it.
Killing Hitler wouldnt be possible (or it was done, but to late in his bunker in '45).
It's the concept of time being not successive but parallel .

And the one good reason why there are no time traveller because we did not see any of them yet is also bullshit.
Imagine mankind invents the time machine in the year 30000 a.d. but the energy for the longest trip backwards only suffices until the year 20000 a.d.

>>4884162
but he's not proposing that there is a god or someone who monitors and maintains the time line. I think he is suggesting that since Hitler was never assassinated, and IF time travel is possible, that means no time traveler has ever succeeded in assassinating Hitler. Ergo, something always happens to who ever tries to assassinate Hitler. Or time travelers never bother to assassinate Hitler? Maybe their doing something else :)

>>4884205
I understand that, but if time travel is possible and people are trying to kill Hitler, then something must be preventing it.

What I'm saying is that you haven't solved the problem of paradoxes by realizing that something stops them -- we'd actually have to learn what forces stop them from occurring.

It is just as big a problem as a paradox to discover what forces prevent paradoxes; it gets us nowhere.
(Mind you, the presumption that there are such forces might be stronger clues to discovering what those forces are.)