Slashdot Mirror


New Model Solves Grandfather Paradox

goldfishy writes "If you went back in time and met your teenage parents, you could not split them up and prevent your birth - even if you wanted to, a new quantum model has stated. Researchers speculate that time travel can occur within a kind of feedback loop where backwards movement is possible, but only in a way that is 'complementary' to the present. In theory, you could go back in time and meet your infant father but you could not kill him." From the article: "Quantum behaviour is governed by probabilities. Before something has actually been observed, there are a number of possibilities regarding its state. But once its state has been measured those possibilities shrink to one - uncertainty is eliminated."

96 of 887 comments (clear)

  1. You insensitive clod! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    I am my own grandfather!

    1. Re:You insensitive clod! by Fjornir · · Score: 5, Funny

      Many, many years ago when I was 23
      I was married to a Wider who was purty as can be
      This Wider had a grown-up daughter who had hair of red
      My father fell in love with her and soon they two were wed

      This made my dad my son-in-law and changed my very life
      For my daughter was my mother cause she was my father's wife
      To complicate the matter even though it brought me joy
      I soon became the father of a bouncing baby boy

      I'm my own grampa,
      I'm my own grampa
      It sounds funny I know
      But it really is so
      I'm my own grampa

      My little baby then became a brother-in-law to dad
      And so became my uncle though it made me very sad
      For if he was my uncle then that also made him brother
      Of the Wider's grown up daughter who of course was my step-mother

      My father's wife then had a son who kept them on the run
      And he became my granchild for he was my daughters son
      My wife is now my mother's mother and it makes me blue
      Because although she is my wife she's my grandmother too

      I'm my own grampa,
      I'm my own grampa
      It sounds funny I know
      But it really is so
      I'm my own grampa

      Oh if my wife is my grandmother then I'm her grandchild
      And every time I think of it, it nearly drives me wild
      For now I have become strangest case you ever saw
      As husband of my own grandmother I'm my own grampa

      I'm my own grampa,
      I'm my own grampa
      It sounds funny I know
      But it really is so
      I'm my own grampa

      --
      I want a new world. I think this one is broken.
    2. Re:You insensitive clod! by LiquidCoooled · · Score: 5, Funny

      And I thought compiler dependencies were tough!

      --
      liqbase :: faster than paper
    3. Re:You insensitive clod! by CapnGrunge · · Score: 2, Funny

      Is that you, Fry Farnsworth?

      --
      I see 57005 people
    4. Re:You insensitive clod! by fyngyrz · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Then you should read "Up the Line" by Robert Silverberg. That's exactly the subject matter -- guy goes back in time and does a maternal ancestor. Repeatedly and in a manner you'll probably sympathize with. Quite entertaining and very, very well done as you would expect of Silverberg.

      --
      I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    5. Re:You insensitive clod! by cpt+kangarooski · · Score: 2, Funny

      What, is it Mitochondrial Eve already? I love that holiday. It's so damn festive!

      --
      -- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
    6. Re:You insensitive clod! by pipingguy · · Score: 2, Funny


      Try replying to a reply to your original post with the exact same wording.

    7. Re:You insensitive clod! by The+Only+Druid · · Score: 3, Insightful

      No, his name is Philip J. Fry. Farnsworth is the last name of his nephew, the professor, many generations removed.

      --
      "Stumble before you crawl"
    8. Re:You insensitive clod! by h4rdc0d3 · · Score: 2, Funny

      Slightly off-topic, but I remember renting the movie "The Stupids" with Tom Arnold shortly after it came out on VHS a while back. It was a pretty dumb movie, but I'm glad I watched it until the end. His redition of this song was hilarious. Anyone know where I could find an mp3 of it?

    9. Re:You insensitive clod! by Cerberus911 · · Score: 4, Funny

      My head just exploded.

    10. Re:You insensitive clod! by NanoGator · · Score: 2, Funny

      "Well I'll be a monkey's uncle!"

      Even with standards this low, this generation of Slashdotters still threatens to be the last.

      --
      "Derp de derp."
    11. Re:You insensitive clod! by EvilTwinSkippy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The next time someone talks about the difficulties of multiple inheritence, they may not be talking about OOP.

      --
      "Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
      --Dr.W.Edwards Deming
    12. Re:You insensitive clod! by ross.w · · Score: 2, Funny

      He could be from Tasmania?

      --
      If my call is important, why am I talking to a recording?
    13. Re:You insensitive clod! by drxenos · · Score: 4, Informative

      At least give the authors of the song credit: Dwight Latham and Moe Jaffe.

      --


      Anonymous Cowards suck.
  2. Futurama - Roswell that Ends Well by havaloc · · Score: 4, Funny

    Farnsworth: Oh, a lesson in not change history from Mr. I'm my own Grandpa!

    1. Re:Futurama - Roswell that Ends Well by SlashThat · · Score: 5, Informative
      I think a more appropriate quote would be:
      Farnsworth: "Don't do anything that affects anything. Unless it turns out you were supposed to do it, in which case for the love of God. Don't not do it!"
      --
      1's and 0's should be free.
    2. Re:Futurama - Roswell that Ends Well by Angry+Toad · · Score: 4, Funny

      One of my favourites, at the end of much messing about with causality, is:

      "Oh screw history, let's get the hell out of here!"

  3. Novikov? by WilliamSChips · · Score: 5, Informative

    Sounds like the Novikov self-consistency principle to me.

    --
    Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.
    1. Re:Novikov? by Fnkmaster · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Yes, it sounds similar.

      And this frustratingly vague article makes a meaningless argument.

      It tries to use the fact that we observe no disappearing people, or other strange temporal modifications as an argument that such things don't happen, and are thus impossible. But if somebody actually changed the way a wave function collapsed at some time in the past, why on earth would we expect to remember things from the way it was "before" it had been changed, since the change by definition happened in our own past, and thus to us it always occurred the way it now occurs? This isn't a logical argument. And it explains part of the aesthetic appeal of the many-worlds interpretation.

      In pure quantum mechanics, time is a special property because wave function collapse via quantum operators (i.e. "observation") is a privileged thing that moves in only one direction. In general relativity, time doesn't have a privileged status. I don't see how you are going to reconcile that basic difference without coming up with a more complete theory (i.e. quantum gravity, GUT, etc.), but then again, my undergrad physics major knowledge is a bit rusty five years later.

    2. Re:Novikov? by Dinjay · · Score: 2, Informative

      There seems to be two main incompatible choices about how time work. One is that the idea of one time-line the Novikov self-consistency principle of time seems to fall into this type.

      The other is branching time in which and multiple N universes are created each moment uncertain point of time which could result in N different possible outcomes. In other words, it the case of Schrodinger's cat http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schr%F6dinger's_cat two separate universes are created - one where the cat is alive and the other where it is dead.

      --
      You break all the laws of physics and you seriously think there wouldn't be a price?
    3. Re:Novikov? by nokilli · · Score: 2, Funny

      As was covered quite competently in Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventure , perhaps still the best treatment of time travel ever given by Hollywood.

    4. Re: Novikov? by Black+Parrot · · Score: 3, Interesting


      > It tries to use the fact that we observe no disappearing people, or other strange temporal modifications as an argument that such things don't happen, and are thus impossible.

      IIRC it has been proven that no time machine could take you back before the time when the machine was created, so unless someone has already created on and kept it secret we shouldn't be seeing tamper effects or visitors from the future anyway.

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    5. Re: Novikov? by marcosdumay · · Score: 3, Informative

      Nobody has ever proved that. What happens is that everybody accepts this fact as a base, and build physics from there. If you assume that a consequence can never happen before the cause, you end up with a model where is impossible to build a time machine that goes to the past.

    6. Re:Novikov? by The_Wilschon · · Score: 4, Interesting

      In pure quantum mechanics, time is a special property because wave function collapse via quantum operators (i.e. "observation") is a privileged thing that moves in only one direction. In general relativity, time doesn't have a privileged status.

      In nonrelativistic QM you mean. In the Dirac and Klein-Gordon equations, time is treated identically with the other dimensions, ie, the Dirac and Klein-Gordon equations are Lorentz invariant. So, yes, time-reversal is something that must be dealt with in relativistic QM. Unfortunately, these equations only describe a few very restricted situations, so they are not as generally applicable as the Schroedinger equation. Also, they only include special relativity, not general relativity, which seems to be where the time-travel is coming from in the as you said frustratingly vague article.

      More bad science in the article:

      Quantum behaviour is governed by probabilities. Before something has actually been observed, there are a number of possibilities regarding its state. But once its state has been measured those possibilities shrink to one - uncertainty is eliminated.

      This is a common misconception. Prior to an observation, any system has a perfectly well defined state: its wave-function. This state, however, may or may not determine various properties of the system. In fact, for a given wave-function, or state, most properties (ie position, velocity, kinetic energy, etc) are restricted to a certain set of eigenvalues, and the wave-function merely determines the probability that a measurement of that property will yield any particular eigenvalue. Immediately after the measurement, the system will be in a state such that that particular property is exactly determined (ie the wave-function will have changed so that the probability of measuring that value for that property is 1, and the probability of measuring any other eigenvalue for that property is 0). This is called the collapse of the wave-function. However, other properties, some of which may have been uniquely determined by the previous wave-function, some of which were not, are now not uniquely determined.

      In other words, what the article said was precisely wrong. Any system always has exactly one state which it is in, and after a measurement (or observation), whatever was measured is no longer uncertain, but most other properties are still uncertain.

      IANA Physicist, yet. I have just finished my junior level undergrad physics courses, and am currently working for the summer at the Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory. Just to establish credentials.

      --
      SIGSEGV caught, terminating

      wait... not that kind of sig.
    7. Re: Novikov? by AKAImBatman · · Score: 3, Interesting

      IIRC it has been proven that no time machine could take you back before the time when the machine was created, so unless someone has already created on and kept it secret we shouldn't be seeing tamper effects or visitors from the future anyway.

      1. Never use the word "proven" around scientists. They'll kick your butt for it.

      2. The theory of which you refer to is only applicable to using stable wormholes for time travel.

      3. Stable wormholes are a thought experiment and have not been shown to exist. (In fact, it now seems unlikely. Which may add credence to this theory. i.e. Time travel is too unpredictable to provide a mechanism through which history may be damaged.)

      4. Never use the word "proven" around scientists. They'll kick your butt for it.

    8. Re: Novikov? by Pfhorrest · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The reason I've always understood is that the only theoretical model for (backward) time travel thus far involves temporally dialating (which is in itself, forward time manipulation) one end of a wormhole by sending it around a big circle at near-c. You then step back through the wormhole, back in time across the temporally dialated wormhole, and come out... a few feet away, where you then walk over to the same end you walked through last time and step back across time again. But at some point the point in time you step back across will be when the other end of the wormhole is still on it's journey through space and thus you CAN'T just walk over to the stationary end and do it again. Thus, you can never travel back before the time machine was built, because there needs to be the temporally dialated wormholes (the time machine) to come out of. It's not temporal teleportation.

      Of course, even that model may be incorrect, and timetravel may be utterly impossible (unless by some other strange means).

      Personally, after that thread I just linked, I'm leaning in favor of impossible. If it were possible though, I definitely go with the many-worlds interpretation. (Hell, I already go with the many-worlds intrepretation just of quantum physics. Wave collapse my ass).

      --
      -Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
      "I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
    9. Re: Novikov? by drwho · · Score: 2

      There's evidence of time travel all around you, you're just not paying attention to it. Much of the inexplicable in the world is due to time travel. A type of time travel is responsible for the creation and re-creation of the universe itself.

    10. Re:Novikov? by lgw · · Score: 2, Insightful

      My point is: "observation" is a meaningless concept. All points in the universe continuously "observe" all other points in the universe. Nothing is *ever* in an "unobserved" state, except perhaps for a duration shorter than plank time.

      You speak of "if I measured the position of an electron, then at the moment I measured it ..." but that's nonsense, really. The position of an electron is continuously measured, as is its momentum, by the space around it. Nothing can ever be unobserved.

      Or do you propose that a electron only has the property of "having been measured" when a certain sort of thing "measures" it? That seems pretty odd - does the momentum space function of an electron only become uniform when *you* measure its position? Perhaps only when measured by a physicist who has published? Perhaps only when measured by a cat?

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
  4. Verifying the Theory by Nova+Express · · Score: 4, Funny
    I would be most interested in how they'll set up the experiment to verify the theory...

    "OK, McFly, here's the gun. If you can kill your own father and thus erase yourself from existence, we'll know the theory was wrong."

    --
    Lawrence Person (lawrencepersonh@gmailh.com (remove all "h"s to mail)

    http://www.lawrenceperson.com/

    1. Re:Verifying the Theory by Malicious · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Um Doc... how about we test on a monkey first?

      --
      01101001001000000110000101101101001000000110001001 10000101110100011011010110000101101110
    2. Re:Verifying the Theory by imr · · Score: 4, Funny

      "OK, McFly, here's the gun. If you can kill your own father and thus erase yourself from existence, we'll know the theory was wrong."
      -"Hey! I'm not that stupid! I wouldnt do that!"
      -"Chicken!"

    3. Re:Verifying the Theory by JoeBuck · · Score: 3, Interesting
      The physicist David Deutsch had a theory that McFly could kill his own father, but that this would just spawn off a new time line in which his father died young and didn't have a kid, in parallel with the time line in which there was no murder and McFly was born. So you could go back and time and do whatever you want, but it would not affect your own history.

      It all falls out of the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics; the closed time-like loops would not "really" be closed and paradoxes could not happen, but you could meet many copies of yourself. Or find out what might have happened had you made a different decision.

  5. Summary by 823723423 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    In other words, even if you take a trip back in time with the specific intention of killing your father, so long as you know he is happily sitting in his chair when you leave him in the present, you can be sure that something will prevent you from murdering him in the past

  6. That's great! by cytoman · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This means that you cannot be killed when you go back in time, nor can you kill or destroy anything! That's just perfect!!

    Go back in time and be able to observe, only... no ability to interact with anyone either... it should be kinda like ghosts... we go back in time and observe and be like ghosts in the sense that we cannot interact and change anything that has already happened but only observe!

    Imagine the possibilities of history classes of the future... maybe there are already a lot of ghosts watching us right now... the future students studying history!!

    1. Re:That's great! by cryptoz · · Score: 2, Funny

      No sane history teacher would force his/her students to watch people post to /.

    2. Re:That's great! by njcoder · · Score: 2, Funny
      "Imagine the possibilities of history classes of the future... maybe there are already a lot of ghosts watching us right now... the future students studying history!!"

      Great. It's not like I wasn't uncomfortable enough having sex in front of the just the dog. I have to worry about porn technology from the future.

    3. Re:That's great! by bfioca · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Actually, there's nothing that would prevent you from being killed on your journey to the past. You just couldn't kill your past self. Your present future is unknown, so you may not survive your trip to the past.

    4. Re:That's great! by Lemmy+Caution · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Here's an interesting twist: I can change the past in a way that changes the future, if I do so in a way that I don't know now. I could, for example, buy some shares of a stock that I know will rise a hundred-fold in value, but make sure that I don't get the money until after the moment I depart current time. Since I don't know that I don't have an envelope worth millions of dollars hidden, with a mechanism that will inform me of it, say, a week after my time-travel tip, it does not contradict what is known about the present that I become a millionaire a week from now.

    5. Re:That's great! by fulldecent · · Score: 4, Informative

      You are quite correct, in fact, this is the only way people make money in the stock market.

      --

      -- I was raised on the command line, bitch

    6. Re:That's great! by toad3k · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You've siphoned millions of dollars off of thousands of people. Those people will react differently, and their actions will in turn affect everyone around them in the end affecting yourself.

      Even if the change is small enough to not affect you going back in time at the exact same moment, you will still act differently the next time you go back in time, onward and onward until you aren't able to travel back anymore due to circumstance.

      This theory is moronic. Just because a human can't perceive a change doesn't mean there isn't one. And one small change ripples through everything around it. This quantum crap seems more like voodoo science every time I hear about it.

    7. Re:That's great! by JWSmythe · · Score: 2, Insightful


      Sure you could. It would just make a branch of the timeline.

      In one branch, someone killed you.

      In the other branch, no one killed you.

      The fork would be at the point before doing the killing. I just hope you know how to get back to the branch that you belonged in. :)

      --
      Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
    8. Re:That's great! by ATomkins · · Score: 2, Insightful
      ... and be like ghosts in the sense that we cannot interact and change anything that has already happened but only observe!

      I could be wrong, but isn't it realistically impossible to observe a reaction without changing the outcome in some way? This was the idea behind Schrödinger's cat.

      Just as it's impossible to get the exact temperature of a cup of hot tea - the calorimeter has to absorb some heat to work - it would be impossible for the light to be absorbed into the students' eyes. Assuming time is infinite, the number of time-travelling students occupying our time approaches a fraction of infinity (still infinity); at which point all the light would have been absorbed. Since that hasn't happened, the students must be akin to deaf, blind, comatose, senseless mutes.

      Ergo - students of the distant future will be no different than students of today. QED and get off my lawn!

    9. Re:That's great! by madmancarman · · Score: 4, Funny
      You are quite correct, in fact, this is the only way people make money in the stock market.

      The fact that this was modded "Informative" can only be explained by time-travelers coming back in time to clue us in on how screwed the stock market is about to be.

      --
      First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win. -- Gandhi
  7. Re:What about... by BurntNickel · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Destiny, it had to happen. Which now make me realize the importance the several episodes of time travel in Futurama had to the plot. It miss it....

    --
    And the knowledge that they fear is a weapon to be used against them...
  8. No no no! by jerald_hams · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "Clearly, the present never is changed by mischievous time-travellers: people don't suddenly fade into the ether because a rerun of events has prevented their births - that much is obvious."

    That's not clear at all. If I went back in time and killed the baby George W Bush, it's like he would disappear in the middle of a speech. Rather the entire course of history branching from that moment would be changed, so that in the "present" no one would ever know GW had existed.

    -Alex

    1. Re:No no no! by crow · · Score: 5, Funny

      You mean like when my friend went back in time and killed President Barnes when he was in first grade?

    2. Re:No no no! by nitehorse · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's actually slight more complicated than that.

      Basically, if time travel is actually possible, the instant that you travel back in time, you would create a fork in the past; you go back to 1978, and every single event prior to the time that you land in may be the same, but as soon as you land in 1978 you create a version of 1978 where you existed. Getting back to your own future would be really difficult, if not impossible.

      The cool thing is, if you kill someone, in that timeline that person completely ceases existing. The problem with this, of course, is that it only affects *that* timeline and any future forks created from that point onwards; it doesn't change the fact that back here, in our timeline, W became the president and launched another Gulf War.

    3. Re:No no no! by dj245 · · Score: 4, Funny
      The problem with this, of course, is that it only affects *that* timeline and any future forks created from that point onwards; it doesn't change the fact that back here, in our timeline, W became the president and launched another Gulf War.

      I am sick of this democrat-republican warring permeating every aspect of society. Can't we become suspicious at other countries and invade them together, as Americans?

      --
      Even those who arrange and design shrubberies are under considerable economic stress at this period in history.
    4. Re:No no no! by Oligonicella · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "...but as soon as you land in 1978 you create a version of 1978 where you existed."

      What makes you think that you weren't there?

  9. What about... by paul248 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Couldn't you go back in time to kill your grandfather, only to have him rematerialize out of quantum randomness 5 minutes later? It's not impossible, just really improbable... maybe that's the protection mechanism.

  10. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  11. Re:How? by The+Good+Reverend · · Score: 4, Insightful

    How can that even be remotely possible? Anything and EVERYTHING (no matter how small or big of an event it is) will change SOMETHING in the future.

    Sci-fi writers have had two main theories for a long time. Either you can go back in time and change things, or you can go back in time and "fulfill" the past you expireinced. Just because you have an influence on the past doesn't mean your influence didn't shape time into the way you remembered it.

    Anyone who thinks any differently needs to go back to school.

    Yes, because I'm sure these quantum physicists haven't spent any time in school...

  12. Re:Unless of course... by bravehamster · · Score: 4, Funny

    By doing the nasty in the pasty.

    --
    ---- El diablo esta en mis pantalones! Mire, mire!
  13. what is _wrong_ with this reporter?! by Blymie · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Clearly, the present never is changed by mischievous time-travellers: people don't suddenly fade into the ether because a rerun of events has prevented their births - that much is obvious.

    So either time travel is not possible, or something is actually acting to prevent any backward movement from changing the present.


    So let me get this straight, BBC reporter. Your proof that time can't be changed, is simply that you don't remember it happening?

    There are just so many flaws in that reasoning. ;)

    First, time changes could be happening everywhere, but perhaps you have not witnessed one. Wait! How about this? How about time changing, and altering your memory at the same time?

    What's the matter with you? Do you believe that it is impossible for something to occur, without you being aware of it?

    Is this a God complex?

    What unmitigated self-importance, BBC reporter!

    Now sure, I know this reporter was likely trying to parse some marlaky that they were told, but this has to be the worst use of logic I have seen.

  14. Re:sounds exactly like the move "the time machine" by Flunitrazepam · · Score: 2, Funny

    not to mention the best-selling novilization of the movie that followed shortly there after!

    --
    1) Your analysis is based on bad assumptions so your result is way off. 2) You're a sick bastard for fucking a horse.
  15. One sperm in a million by Saeger · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The one thing that always bothered me about those time travel movies (besides the ridiculous timetravel part) like "Back To the Future", is that you wouldn't have to go to extremes to prevent your birth. All you would have to do is bump into your Mom or Dad to delay them for 1 second; that slight change in the timeline would guarantee that it would be a different sperm that won the race to impregnate your mom.

    --
    Power to the Peaceful
    1. Re:One sperm in a million by imr · · Score: 5, Funny

      Hmm, how long have you been fantazing about bumping into your Mom so that a different sperm would impregnate her?

    2. Re:One sperm in a million by H0NGK0NGPH00EY · · Score: 5, Funny

      I really could have gone without hearing the phrase "impregnate your mom" this evening.

      --
      Do not read this sig.
  16. Lame! by khasim · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Clearly, the present never is changed by mischievous time-travellers: people don't suddenly fade into the ether because a rerun of events has prevented their births - that much is obvious.
    Ummm, if you prevented their births, they wouldn't exist to "fade into the ether".

    It could be happening all the time and you wouldn't be aware of it (by definition).
    And now a team of physicists from the US and Austria says this situation can only be the case if there are physical constraints acting to protect the present from changes in the past.
    Sounds like bad fiction to me.
    The researchers say these constraints exist because of the weird laws of quantum mechanics even though, traditionally, they don't account for a backwards movement in time.
    Sounds like the techno-babble "justification" in the bad fiction.
    So, if you know the present, you cannot change it.
    And the easiest way to not change it is for time travel to be impossible.
    If, for example, you know your father is alive today, the laws of the quantum universe state that there is no possibility of him being killed in the past.
    If, for example, you knew a picture would be taken, you could reflect light from your body and appear in that picture, thereby altering the future.

    So, travelling back in time, you cannot reflect light, and, by the same token, you cannot absorbe light.

    And it just moves up from there for all other physical effects. Nothing touched, no air breathed, no light disturbed, nothing.

    So, how would you even know you were in the past?
    1. Re:Lame! by barawn · · Score: 3, Informative

      Look up "closed timelike loop."

      Basically all this article is saying is that all time travel must consist of closed timelike loops. That is, you "fulfill" the present, rather than altering it. This isn't news - it's the only kind of timelike loop that can exist in GR anyway. The difference here is that quantum mechanics also forces them to be the only ones that exist.

      Point of note, however: as far as I know, we don't actually have the math to deal with the formation of a topological change in a surface (i.e., the "alteration" of a timeline). This is very much akin to a wave crashing - fluid dynamics works up until the exact point when the top of the wave touches the rest of the ocean. After that point, the math breaks down. So it's a little difficult to say "X isn't possible, because the math won't allow it" when theorists are in fact only using math that won't allow it. So it's moderately circular. That's GR. In QM, we don't actually have the math that deals with the collapse of the wavefunction (the 'measurement'), and so again, it's moderately circular. If you instead suppose that the wavefunction doesn't actually collapse, then of course you can change the past - you just end up following a different course in probability the second time around.

      Examples of closed timelike loops actually are more common than you think in modern scifi/fantasy. Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban had an excellent example of a CTL, and the timetravel used in Anne McCaffrey's Pern series are entirely CTLs. This leads to statements like "I know I can do this, because I've done it already."

      The problem with CTLs is that they muck with certain people's belief in free will.

      If, for example, you knew a picture would be taken, you could reflect light from your body and appear in that picture, thereby altering the future.

      Assuming you didn't exist in the picture before you went back in time.

      And it just moves up from there for all other physical effects. Nothing touched, no air breathed, no light disturbed, nothing.

      Unless it was already disturbed to begin with.

      Again, there's no real logical problem here. Just the fact that you would have to disassociate yourself from the fact that all of your future actions are possible.

      I don't necessarily agree with time travel. A closed timelike loop is essentially the equivalent of a monkey popping out of thin air, and then disappearing a few seconds later. It seems idiotic, and completely counter to all natural laws. But that wouldn't be the first time nature did that to us.

    2. Re:Lame! by Gaewyn+L+Knight · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Nah... it gets better than that. Unlike what we see in Doctor Who and such, time travel would be a VERY dangerous thing.

      For example... if you try to assasinate your mother before you are conceived then since time is self consistent something will prevent you. That is what this theory is saying. Since you have observed the state everything in known in that state will be self consistent.

      So... since we know that we can't change any part of the past that we know lets create a scenario.

      You go into the past to shoot your mother before you are conceived. Several rare events now become very likely. Since you know she didn't die then something WILL prevent you from killing her.

      You try to snipe her from a distance:
      1. You get out of your time machine and are hit by a car.
      2. You manage to avoid that but as you are running up the hill to a good vantage point you have a heart attack and die
      3. You manage to get out of the time machine and up the hill... but a defect in the gun causes it to explode killing you when you pull the trigger
      4. ...etc...


      Fate/luck are never on your side when you try to change something in the past that you know the history of.

      For your example... even if you reflect light into the photo a freak problem in the negative processing would make it not show... or you would only affect a part of the image you hadn't noticed before... etc...
      --
      Telcos have alot of dark fibre in the States. Most people assume that's optical fibre...but it's actually moral fibre.
  17. Re:H'uh? by daft_one · · Score: 5, Funny

    "Anyone else having difficulty imagining a scenario where it would be "impossible" to kill somebody?"

    *cough* Bin Laden *cough*

  18. Two simple rules... by JuliusRV · · Score: 2, Interesting

    To avoid contradictions in time travel, two simple rules must apply:

    1) You can observe, but not alter the past.
    2) You can alter, but not observe the future.

  19. First American Pie, now this... by xstonedogx · · Score: 4, Funny

    Well, I, for one, will never enjoy a pasty ever again.

  20. What about parallel and multi-universes? by DoctoRoR · · Score: 3, Interesting

    It's still hard to grok what this "prevention" means to the time traveller. If you go back, are you physically prevented from firing the gun or will the gun misfire? Or if you make a change, does the timeline establish a new universe with the old one running along merrily as a parallel universe.

    When we use our senses, we only see things in the typical 4D realm, so is it possible that all those other postulated dimensions (to 11) give the degrees of freedom to allow bifurcations in the timeline? Geez this is confusing.

    1. Re:What about parallel and multi-universes? by cortana · · Score: 2, Interesting

      > If you go back, are you physically prevented from firing the gun or will the gun
      > misfire?

      Something like that. Or you miss. Or you are killed in a traffic accident while crossing the street on your way to kill the guy.

      Basically, anything you could do in the past, you have already done. History records that Hitler wasn't killed by a sniper--therefore events have already prevented you from going back in time and shooting him.

    2. Re:What about parallel and multi-universes? by fimbulvetr · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I don't like that. Let's say I travel back in time to two days before today and I land in wet cement, leaving foot prints. However, the day before I left (Which would be the day after I arrive), the cement layer came to work in the morning and saw no foot prints. Doesn't that prevent me from traveling back, because history records show the cement was smooth?

      Or...Does it allow me to 'land' back in time *only* where my landing does not affect anything in the future. Where would that be? Wouldn't my biological struture have influence on just about any environment?

  21. Predicted by GURPS and Chrono Trigger by Saucepan · · Score: 2, Interesting
    This is pretty nifty. It reminds me of the old GURPS time-travel rules supplement. Under those rules, time travel was possible, but it was not possible to change the past in a way inconsistent with your knowledge of the future -- the Game Master was instructed to thwart any such attempts by any means necessary, however unlikely. So, an organization of bad guys might try to take over ancient, remote civilizations where doing so would leave no evidence surviving into the present, while the good guys would go around recording as much information about history as possible in order to fix it in place, protecting it from the bad guys.

    If you saw your buddy killed before your eyes, you would leave the scene immediately, and avoid examining the body in any way. Instead, you'd go get a dummy that looks like your buddy, then return to the time just before your buddy died, rescue him, and leave the dummy behind to "fool" your past self. I was delighted later on to see that in the game Chrono Trigger it was possible to use exactly this mechanism to save the life of one of the characters in spite of their onscreen "death".

  22. Re:Unless of course... by Jozer99 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    What this sounds like to me: If you have directly or indirectly observed something occur, then there is no uncertaincy of it occuring. If you haven't directly seen something happen or been informed that it happened, then it may not have happened. Why do we need scientists to tell us this?

  23. Re:This is just a cop-out by poopdeville · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Nope. I can prove it to you.

    Lets say that at t = 0 your father is alive. And you go back to t = -10 to kill him. Let's say, further, that you kill him. So at t = -10 your father is dead. Then at t = 0 your dad is dead. This is a contradiction by hypothesis. The logic here is valid, so some premise must fail.

    So it is logically impossible to kill your own father, given a relatively naive understanding of causation and fatherhood. A more nuanced understanding of causation and space-time might include things like "branching universes" and the like. Which is perfectly fine. But then there's the philoshical issue whether the person killed is actually your father or "merely" your "parallel universe father."

    --
    After all, I am strangely colored.
  24. Worthless! by Bootard · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Apparently the BBC can report on this new model, but they can't seem to say where these papers are being published or what scientists are working on it or at which universities this research is taking place. Michio Kaku posited this might be the case in his book Hyperspace (excellent book) and to my mind, this is on the same level. It is defenitly some interesting stuff to talk about after burning a J, but it hardly rises to the level of scientific model. The Standard Model is a model; this is just fluff, albeit somewhat interesting fluff.

    --
    exceptio probat regulam in casibus non exceptis
  25. Douglas Adams figured this out long ago. by readin · · Score: 2, Insightful

    One of the major problems encountered with time travel is not that of accidentally becoming your own father or mother. There is no problem involved in becoming your own father or mother that a broadminded and well adjusted family can't cope with. There is also no problem about changing the course of history - the course of history does not change because it all fits together like a jigsaw. All the important changes have happened before the things they were supposed to change and it all sorts itself out in the end.

    Douglas Adams, The Restaurant at the End of the Universe



    This is another case of science fiction being well ahead of science.

    --
    I often don't like the choices people make, but I like the fact that people make choices. That's why I'm a conservative.
  26. Laws of physics are time symmetric by tylersoze · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Something I don't think a lot of people really grok is that the laws of physics are time symmetric (actually the full symmetry is CPT, charge+parity+time, an electron going back in time would be a positron for example) so the fundamental weirdness is why we perceive time to flow in one direction in the first place. That's why I've always loved Feynman's absorber theory and it's associated spin-off the transactional interpretation of quantum mechanics. Those theories don't discard the so-called "advanced" (that is, backwards in time)solutions and work out how in a universe with appropriate boundary conditions you get an arrow of time. The advanced solutions actually exist but because of the boundary conditions they cancel each other out except where they "count". So according to the theory, when you go to push an electron every other particle in the universe sends waves back in time in response to push back on the electron at the exact instant you push it! The advanced waves only manifest themselves as the normal radiation resistance we observe when accelerating charged particles. The transactional interpretation takes this line of thinking with regards to the collaspe of the wave function. When one particle of a two particle entangled system wave function collapses it sends an advance wave back in time to collapse the wave function of the other particle. So in the EPR experiment there is no instanteous "spooky action at a distance" but travel exactly at the speed of light but in the opposite direction in time.

  27. Re:How? by It+doesn't+come+easy · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Just because you have an influence on the past doesn't mean your influence didn't shape time into the way you remembered it.

    For this to work, there would have to be no beginning and no end. In other words, no free will.

    --
    The NSA: The only part of the US government that actually listens.
  28. Discovered Simultaneously At All Times by Marc_Hawke · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The thing about time travel is that by nature, it has to be discovered simultaneously at all points in time. So, if we're not doing time travel right now, we never will. (At least random-access time travel. Someone might come up with a short term 'rewind' ala Superman or "Prince of Persia.")

    The reason is...as soon as the first time machine is invented, then everyone from the future will jump back into the past and invent it first.

    --
    --Welcome to the Realm of the Hawke--
  29. Re:How? by It+doesn't+come+easy · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Doesn't work. At some point you would have had to decide to go to the past or not. What you are saying is that the past already contains whatever decision you made. If so that would mean you had no real choice. There has to be a beginning in order to have free will. If the past already contains all of our decisions of the present then we couldn't have really decided anything.

    You are also thinking of the future as something undetermined but the past as determined and unchangable. Our present is the past of the future. For the past to be unchangable our present would also have to be unchangable. Again, we are back to no free will.

    The whole point of time travel presenting us a paradox is because we think we have free will. If there is no possibility of a paradox then we have no free will.

    --
    The NSA: The only part of the US government that actually listens.
  30. Uva Jed by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 3, Funny

    This story is a dup. The original will be published next week.

    --

    --
    make install -not war

  31. Re: What about... by Black+Parrot · · Score: 2, Interesting


    > Couldn't you go back in time to kill your grandfather, only to have him rematerialize out of quantum randomness 5 minutes later? It's not impossible, just really improbable... maybe that's the protection mechanism.

    The actual protection mechanism is that you discover your grandfather to still be a young stud rather than a cranky old man, and he gives you a good ass-beating before sending you back where you belong.

    --
    Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
  32. They can't even figure THIS out? by Mock · · Score: 2, Interesting

    They can talk about quantum probabilities till they're blue in the face, but until they accept the fact that there are more measurable dimensions beyond time, we'll remain stuck in this stupid mindset that you can't travel back in time and kill your grandfather.
    By this rationale, the very act of time travel will destroy you, because it will cause two copies of yourself to occupy the same three-dimensional space at the same time!

    A better theory would be one that proposes "cause" as another dimension, where all objects have specific properties at a point of length, with, height, time, and cause.
    Cause provides a kind of branching decision point, where one "reality" diverges from all the rest. By going back in time and killing your grandfather, you alter your "cause" from that point forward. If you travel forward in time, you'll find that the "you" that would exist through your father in that "cause" reality does not exist, but you can still exist since you travelled there from a forward point in the "cause" that created you.

    Expand your mind.

  33. Sci-fi has two main theories? Try philosophy by Togra · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Actually, philosophers have had the theories, but time-travel sci-fi is, like most sci-fi, just a futuristic take on one philosophical idea or another.

    The "new" model is actually called the "B theory" of time and isn't new at all (although this scientific explanation of it is I guess). The B theory is that every instance in time exists somewhere and it is always "now" in that instance, so there is no real past, present or future. In the B theory if you were to go back in time you would merely fulfil the events that happen in that instance of time, always as the way they were intended.

    So if you went back in an attempt to kill the parents of the bully who harassed you in school you would find out that your attempts failed, and that they didn't change your "present" at all. In fact, they would have helped created your present. A good example of this theory in effect is the sci-fi series "Andromeda", which follows the B theory of time in its time-travel episodes. A more well known example is the movie 12 Monkeys.

    Star Trek on the other hand follows the multiple futures theory, whereby if you go back in time and change something you actually from that point on move down a different branch of time into an alternate future. The Butterfly Effect is another movie example of this.

    The problem with the B theory of time is that it requires a deterministic universe, which is an unpleasant who isn't a materialist (ie. you believe you're made up of more than just matter). Of course the alternate timeline theory also has its own problems in that regard, wherein if you can exist in multiple timelines then which one is really you and where is your soul? If you're a materialist then no worries :p.

    My own theory on the matter is that time is nothing more than a human construct. Matter changes, and one change takes place before another, and we measure the order in which these changes occur and call that 'time'.

  34. John Wyndham by jd · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I forget the name of the short story, but the female character ended up being her own great grand-daughter, as a result of a letter she received from her husband/great-grand-father.

    --
    It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
  35. Re:What about... by HyperChicken · · Score: 2, Funny

    That sounds like a wager.

    --
    Free of Flash! Free of Flash!
  36. Re:Time Travel is IMPOSSIBLE. by Lorkki · · Score: 3, Funny

    Hereforth, I propose that all mass in our universe is comprised of elaborate boolean operations on chicken. After all, it is a well-known truth that chicken tastes like everything, and it also helps explain why so much of DNA is the same throughout species.

    Unfortunately, I don't have a concise mathematical model to support this hypothesis yet, but I'm sure there's someone resourceful out there who can take care of all that hand-waving stuff.

  37. Re:Silly, silly theorists by JWSmythe · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Ahhh, someone who's willing to ask. :) Thanks. :)

    While trying to avoid sounding like a complete lunitic, I'll try to explain the best I can. I'm no expert in paranormal events, so some of my phrasing may be a bit off. I was corrected on my experience of "Deja Vu" a few months ago, being told it's really "Precognition".

    I was told when I was a kid that if I live through an event a second time, where I'm sure it couldn't have happened before, it was a "Deja Vu". This was clarified by someone more into paranormal phenomena to be a precognition. A deja vu is where you've lived it once, and you're living it again, even though you probably weren't able to have lived it once before. Use the example from the Matrix, where he sees a black cat run by, and then turns to see the same black can run by the same way again.

    My precognitions usually happen years before the real event. They come in dreams. Usually they're very clear events, as viewed from my own eyes. Hollywood never portrays them like that, usually to show the stars involved in the scenes.

    The most notable one was a conversation I had with 4 complete strangers. I went to a city I hadn't been to before, with a new friend. We met 4 of his friends there, and through the evening, we were having a conversation. We ended up in a library, and for 10 seconds through the conversation, I knew exactly what everyone was to say. At the point where I was suppose to say something, I didn't say a word. By not saying my part, the next person to speak didn't say anything, because I had changed the chain of events. They continued talking, it was just that it changed subtly.

    Another changed event was visiting a strange house as a child. We went to a house, and I asked to play downstairs. I named very specific details of the downstairs of the house, because I **KNEW** I had been there before. They corrected me in that I had never been there before, because they had just moved in, but my details of the basement were absolutely correct, including an item of furnature which was left there by the previous owner. I may have changed this event by mentioning it too early, or it may have been changed by someone else changing plans.

    My precognitions come more frequently when "something" is going to happen. The precognitions never have anything to do with the event that is going to happen, they're just like warnings that it will happen. The event isn't necessarly important to me, about half the time they are. I may get precognitions several times a day when the event is coming close. After the event, they can completely go away for a while. Sometimes it's weeks, sometimes it's years.

    I can usually remember when the dreams are from. Usually they don't make sense at all, because of the time that I have the vision. I pass them off as a weird dream, until it really happens.

    For example, I was dating this really nice girl. I dated her for years. While I was dating her, I had this dream. I was with this other girl in my car. This was a nice car, which at the time I didn't have anything like. I was at a particular intersection in a city I had never been in. I was messing with the air conditioning controls, because this girlfriend had changed something while I was driving. She was also talking on a cell phone to my ex-girlfriend (the girl I was dating when I had the dream), and their conversation was exactly from the dream.

    When I had the precognition, I didn't see the girlfriend in the dream, because I was looking out at the traffic, which was a very specific part of the precognition. I didn't know what she'd look like, and I didn't realize what it was until it all happened. That dream was about 4 years previous to the event.

    I spoke with someone who does remote viewing professionally. He's described some of his work. One that he told me about was an event that he was asked to view where something important to the investigat

    --
    Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
  38. Re:Unless of course... by dcclark · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Why do we need scientists to tell us this?

    Because this is a horribly simplified and popularized version of actual scientific work. It happens all the time: you hear "Study says: People would be happier if they chose jobs they liked." Everyone posts to /. saying "I could have told you that, who's paying these guys?" And all it really is, is that there was actual good scientific research going on, and the press got ahold of the simplest sound bite they could and presented THAT. There's usually a lot more than meets the eye.

  39. Unintentional movement by vhold · · Score: 2, Interesting

    If we arbitrarly set time as a 4th dimension, which encompasses some arbitrary number of 3 dimensional states, space, then can't probability be a 5th dimension that contains all the different possible timelines?

    We unintentionally move forward through the 4th dimension of time right now. Let's say we can move through time freely with a time machine, but by doing so there is an unintentional movement 5th dimensionally through possibility.

    We see no time travelers because in our timeline the time machine is never created, but we might eventually create one, but every time we go back in time with it, we travel unintentionally through probability and there's probably already a bunch of time travellers there, we can't ever go back to our own original histories.

  40. No chance... by Mister+Impressive · · Score: 2, Funny

    ... so there's no chance of stopping Lucas from making Episodes I-III?

    --
    Let the commencement BEGINULATE!
  41. Not New! by God+of+Lemmings · · Score: 2, Informative

    This is hardly a "new" theory. At best it is a restatement of the decades old theories that are expressed here:http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/time-travel -phys/

    --
    Non sequitur: Your facts are uncoordinated.
  42. There is a much better answer to this by alricsca · · Score: 2, Funny

    I get tired of people being so limited in their thinking. A quantum wave function does not need to collapse. It can vibrate between all possible futures. When we observe it, it is our interaction with it at whatever point it is in its vibration that changes what universe we are in. The wave appears to collapse as we have now changed our own location in the multiverse relative to the quantum wave we were observing. Notice that we ourselves can act like quantum waves and that we like the wave we were observing are vibrating between possible realities. We simply made an observation or in other words we engaged in action that caused a quantum level interaction that pushed us away from another quantum waves location givings us the appearance of its collapse into one certain reality. As to what happens when you kill your grandfather in the past. In the universe you leave you would appear to vanish forever having engaged in a action that moved that reality away from you. In the past you do kill the man whose particles participate in the multiversal wave that your Grandfather participates in. The result is that you have now moved yourself into a universe in which the matter making up your dad's structure is dead. You still exist because you came from the future at a point in a another universe in which he still exists in the living form of your to sire you. So, ironically, the answer is that you cannot kill your actual father but you can go back and kill a version of your father and in so doing remove yourself forever from the universe in which your father exists. :-)

  43. Re:Can we please get past the this fate/luck crap? by 42forty-two42 · · Score: 3, Informative
    In quantum physics, observing is altering. Thus, the question is between the many-worlds or the self-consistency theories.

    In the many-worlds theory, if you alter the past a new timeline is created, with your changes in place. If you kill your mother, then the other you doesn't exist, but since he's not the one who went back in time, no problem.

    In the self-consistent theory (there might be a better name, but I don't know it), any alterations you make in the past have already been made. They are part of the history that led up to your time travel in the first place. Paradoxes are impossible - the probability of such an event is zero, as it assumes multiple, inconsistent events occur. One way to think of this is as similar to many-worlds, except with no branching - every world which is self-consistent exists, and every one with a paradox does not. While it appears to you you're going back in time to meet/kill/observe your mother, you're in fact just following a closed timelike curve through spacetime. The eventualities in which there is a paradox do not exist - even if you get to the past with killing intent, you will not be able to carry it out. Something will happen to prevent you carrying out your mission, from a simple attack of conscience to a sudden meteor strike.

  44. So? by Renraku · · Score: 2, Insightful

    We, existing in this universe, are on a crash course toward the future.

    There's no stopping it or slowing down of time, in the traditional sense. However, it might be possible (with the help of absolute zero) to stop all things in the area of the absolute zero. This would be akin to stopping time, as nothing could be happening within that area.

    Unbaking a cake or uncracking an egg is a good example of going back in time. Hey, if you can take a fully-baked cake, reverse the steps, and make it back into cake-mix-egg-and-milk-inna-bowl, that's good enough time travel for me.

    --
    Job? I don't have time to get a job! Who will sit around and bitch about being broke and unemployed then?
  45. Re:Time Travel is IMPOSSIBLE. by Einherjer · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Actually it is proven that time travel forward is indeed possible (Einstein proved that in 1905 with his special relativity). It is happening all the time [sic]. Relative motion in spacetime in accordance with the absolute spacetime is what we perceive. This relative motion's duration is different for every observer.

    So in fact, yes, time travel is possible. It just only proven for forward time travel. Backwards... We'll see about that...

  46. Surely... by Gordonjcp · · Score: 2, Funny

    ... being one's own father is not going to be nearly as messy as being one's own mother?

  47. Re:This is just a cop-out by hugesmile · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Lets say that at t = 0 your father is alive. And you go back to t = -10 to kill him. Let's say, further, that you kill him. So at t = -10 your father is dead. Then at t = 0 your dad is dead. This is a contradiction by hypothesis. The logic here is valid, so some premise must fail.

    There are numerous problems with your "proof". Here are some assumptions that you gloss over:

    - You assume that t automatically progresses from -10 to 0, with all other values in tact. That is, you assume that if father is dead at t=-10, then father will be dead at t=0. Pretty wild assumption, considering that you assume just the opposite is true (that if father is dead at t-10, it's possible for father to be alive at t-11). It's a much more logical assumption that if father's state can change from dead to alive going in the negative direction (from t=-10 to t=-11), then father's state can also change from dead to alive in the positive direction (from t=-10 to t=0).

    - You assume that it is impossible for father to be dead at t=0 and father to also be alive at t=0. Since parallel universes and probabilistic realities are two hotly debated ideas (by people smarter than you), I'd say that this assumption cannot be relied upon.

    You can't just apply math where you want to, and gloss over these huge assumptions. Nice try, though.

    - A/C #12345

  48. why isn't that view more popular? by HappyEngineer · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I've always wondered why that sort of view isn't more popular or at least widely recognized as a reasonable alternative to the "quantum magic" view of the world. It's philosophically more reasonable while being mathematically identical.

    When I was taking undergraduate quantum mechanics (about 8 years ago), I recall feeling elated when I ran across a single paragraph in the textbook that referred to the possibility that one day someone might develop a non statistical theory for the workings of the sub quantum world.

    It probably would be pure fantasy since there's no way such a theory could ever be tested (right?), but I was happy to see that it was at least acknowledged that the statistics are just a tool and not a philosophical statement about what the universe is.

  49. Re:Too Easy by TheWormThatFlies · · Score: 2, Informative

    You're thinking of "--All You Zombies--". "By His Bootstraps" is a similarly structured story about a man who is visited by future versions of himself, who give him advice. It is also a closed time loop, but I think the one in "All You Zombies" is considerably more convoluted.

    The circumstances of the protagonist's conception and birth are an elaborate setup which can exist only because of the interference of the protagonist as an older man in his own past - he is his own mother and father, and in various other ways responsible for his own existence. He feels as if he is the only real person in the world, hence the title: "I know where I came from, but where did all you zombies come from?"