It's a really interesting issue, to say the least. I believe time travel is possible, but that you can't change the future, because it already counts with you changing it. An example would be the end of the third Harry Potter book (the main characters should have known that they wouldn't be seen because they hadn't seen their future selves) or Philip K. Dick's short story
The Skull.
I hope it makes sense - anyway, the theory was already mentioned here several times.
Personally, I would only go to the past to observe, not to change anything. I also have a point about not regretting anything that has ever happened to me and going on... Which leads me to:
brian said:
Ah - but what about regretting what happens to other people, though? For example, I figure a lot of people would want to prevent the implementation of "the Final Solution" the Nazis. However, wouldn't stopping that have an inadvert negative impact? In the realm of genetics that we currently explore, the whole issue of Eugenics has been thoroughly destroyed precisely because of the Nazis. However, before them it was an entirely respectable field. Without Hitler, we could be stumbling into a whole different Eugenics nightmare right now - and with far, far, more powerful tools.
My theory is that perhaps, before, the WWII and all was much worse (hard to imagine, sure, but anyway). For example there was a different leader than Hitler, who made an even narrower choice of who to let live, wiping out ninety percent of the world in the end. Then a time-traveler zoomed back, got rid of this person and replaced him with Hitler, who was maybe weaker and had a bigger chance of losing. The Final Solution stayed, but there was no negative impact, like Brian wrote. Thus the situation turned out as we know it today and we never suspected anything.
There's a slight catch, though. When we would get to the future, there would have to be a mention of the time-traveller and some details. Otherwise we wouldn't know that we're supposed to send someone out... Darn, I'm getting too caught up in this! I hope I managed to get the idea across. The best way would be to read
The End of Eternity by Isaac Asimov. That's where I got the theory from, and Eternity itself (a name for an organization, not the real thing) is a very cool concept as well.
ste-makina said:
any one intrested in time travel should look up 9dimensional theory on the internet or maybe they should watch the bill and ted movies.
Yay! Bill and Ted
I've only seen the first movie, but the
best part was when they were walking down the street (in their time), and one of them bent behind the billboard and took out the keys.
chrispenycate said:
A straight forward four dimentional universe does not disallow time travel, but it is static: everything that will be done, has been done or is being done is fixed. The ultimate in predestination, no problem of paradoxes and pretty boring for stories. It would allow filming the crusades of solving murder mysteries bu not much else.
It looks like chrispenycate had voiced my theory in a far less complicated manner! So, basically, this is what I had meant
chrispenycate said:
The "time scan" facility which would allow information (but not matter or energy- that'd contradict conservation laws) to come forward along the entropy arrow- not much more use. Running it backwards is disturbing- if the moment you get your time machine running there's a note in it from yourself telling you how to build it better, which horse to back and tomorrows weather, that's saved us a lot of trial and error.
I've always wanted to try the horse-betting one. I read a story about a man who could communicate with himself as he would be in 48 hours. He became a millionaire by working the stock market.
chrispenycate said:
Of course, we hit some other slight problems- if we travel from the surface of a planet, when we arrive, the planet's not there. Or, if by some freak of orbital dynamics it happens to be, it's not moving at the same speed. It would be much wiser doing it in a spacecraft, and finding the planet later (probably what all those UFOs are) H.G.Wells put his machine in fast forward rather than hop mode, so its weight and friction stopped it from detaching itself from the surface of the planet, probably very wise, but he was lucky that the surface of the planet stayed at the same level- rare over such periods- so embarassing to find oneself buried under five meters of rock, or twenty meters above the surface of the sea.
I think time machines would have that figured out - either they would change place with the rock (so they'd end up in a time machine-shaped hole in the middle of the mountain... but at least they won't be squashed) and then bore out of it like a mole. Or the travellers would figure out what the place will look like in the future - like jumping through hyperspace. You also have to make sure you won't end up in the middle of a sun.
Sandro said:
As a professor I have to ask you to ask yourself if you are a fantasist or a realist? - And then to further ponder space, time and quantum physics. (It is all about susceptibility and whether your brain can actually comprehend what you are about to learn - Einstein was good at this).
I can tell you that time travel is only possible from a theoretical point of view and always will be. You cannot go back in time or forward into the future.
I'd be the first to admit I know
nothing about physics, the theory of relativity, etc. But isn't it a bit early to make such a judgement? From today's point of view, and quite well many future years' point as well, it is impossible. However, maybe someone will make a grand breakthrough sometime in the future and will get the hand of time-travelling. *shrug*
Anyway, at least there's still hope (and A. C. Clarke's first law
)
The DeadMan said:
Many of history's greatest events and greatest disasters were witnessed by large numbers of people. The World Trade Center, The Space Shuttle Challenger explosion, the Atomic bombing of Japan in WWII. Whose to say that some of those people who witnessed those events might or might not have been time travelers. Of course some events one might like to witness are known to have only one or two people present. If as my idea states one could not interfere with the past then one would not be able to appear at those events.
I think that too. Nicely stated *grin*.
I apologize for the lengthy reply - the subject is just so intriguing that I had to add my two cents. And it was great reading through ll of your responses
