Talk:Causal loop

star trek

This appears to be factually incorrect as, while the paradox does apply to the existence of tranparent aluminum in the future, the formula was payment for the old fashioned polymer stuff in stock. While this isn't explicitly stated in the film it is noted that Scotty noticed it in stock ( as in saw what he needed) and did not deny that the formula was the path to the process it would still take years for the guy to figure out. Further, the factory could not have retooled in two days, not would the thing even cool in that period. This needs to be fixed or cited.108.249.235.44 (talk)

Citation style

Hi, please abide by Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Inline_citations. The article needs to use either short citations (fine by me), parenthetical referencing (ugly, but fine by me), or basic footnotes (my preferred style and the predominant style on Wikipedia). We can't mix-and-match these styles. BrightRoundCircle (talk)

What type of casual loop?

I would like to modify (or have someone else modify) the first sentence to specify what type of item the article is discussing.

Right now, the first sentence is:

"A causal loop in the context of time travel or the causal structure of spacetime, is a sequence of events (actions, information, objects, people)^[1][2] in which an event is among the causes of another event, which in turn is among the causes of the first-mentioned event.^[3][4]."

I would like to insert one word or a short phrase (probably just after "...the causal structure of spacetime,...") that indicates what kind of abstract construction a casual loop is, so far as the article in concerned. For examples:

"A causal loop in the context of time travel or the causal structure of spacetime, is a proven sequence of events..." [in the sense of proven by some reproducible experiment]

OR

"A causal loop in the context of time travel or the causal structure of spacetime, is a theoretical sequence of events..." [in the sense of theoretical physics]

OR

"A causal loop in the context of time travel or the causal structure of spacetime, is a fictional sequence of events..."

Without such a statement, readers can't tell whether casual loops have been discussed by physicists ever since Einstein or if they're really just playthings of science fiction.

I can find nothing in the article that indicates the sequences of events that go to make up casual loops are anything other than fictional. Unless someone objects and can show me a connection between casual loops and anything higher, in a week or so, I'll insert the term fictional. If you can add a sentence that says, for example: "Casual loops were discussed by XXX [a notable theoretical physicist] in his article YYY.^[z]" then we can upgrade the specification to theoretical or proven.

--RoyGoldsmith (talk) 13:27, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

The status of closed timelike curves in physics is given here: General relativity permits some exact solutions that allow for time travel.^[24] Some of these exact solutions describe universes that contain closed timelike curves, or world lines that lead back to the same point in spacetime.^[25][26][27] See closed timelike curve and exact solutions in general relativity for the general relativity treatment of causal loops, quantum mechanics of time travel for the quantum treatment. Better yet, follow one of the more accessible references in the article, such as Smith (2013), Lobo (2003), Vissier (1996), or Earman (1995). The other references are either too technical or not technical enough, but you could follow up on the technical papers if you want. Bright☀ 17:33, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

@BrightR: and anyone else: Then I would be correct if I inserted the word "theoretical" in the first sentence: "A causal loop in the context of time travel or the causal structure of spacetime, is a theoretical sequence of events...". But wouldn't it be better to separate the physics article (Novikov, Quantum computation) from everything else (say, Causal loops in philosophy and fiction)? --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 15:38, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes, causal loops are consistent with (some universes that are described by) the theory of general relativity, but they're also a philosophical issue (does causality necessarily work only from past to future?) and a hypothetical issue (since most descriptions of quantum physics are timeless, does the future influence the past?) and a topic in fiction and so on. So while I don't object to the adjective "theoretical", it's a bit reductive. It's a sequence of events [...], whether empirical, theoretical, hypothetical, philosophical, or fictional. Bright☀ 17:54, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Virtual particles

Virtual particles are a physics example of causal loops not mentioned in the article. In short; particle pairs as particle and anti particle with opposite charge pop into existence annihilate each other and the energy of the matter anti matter explosion goes backward in time to form the pair in the first place. Quantum models of particle pair formation have spacetime simmering violently with pair formation and annihilation. Predicted evidence supporting virtual particles is found in Hawking radiation and a slight delay of arrival of short frequency light from long distant events compared to long frequency light arrival time. The cause being that the small frequency light travels farther on the simmering spacetime than a longer frequency. Like a toy car on a rough road moving up and down on the rough road travels farther than a large car on the same road moves in a more straight line. 98.164.64.58 (talk) 16:27, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

goes backward in time Bright☀ 21:09, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

make page: Self-causality = self-causation

Self-causation due to entropy doesn't necessarily lead to a causal loop.
Also cosmogony requires self-causality (αυταιτιότητα) as an ingredient of the metalogical explanation of cosmogony.

• cosmological personocrats = cosmological personocentrists = theists: claim that at least one personhood is precosmic and self-causal (personhood is a mental/intellectual phenomenon; thus a society of others is required in order personhood is fulfilled/completed - the informational components of personhood don't seem to be related with physics/and cosmomechanics in general)
• topologists: claim that a small part of a self-causal pretopological space decayed into the universe
• nilogonists/nihilogonists: claim that nothing decays into something; particularly into a universe (in metalogic, nothing is non-entropic, non-existing, non-changing and non-decayable) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:587:410B:9A00:A9A2:5057:DE1:C511 (talk) 16:17, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Casual Loop in Plant of the Apes movie series

An example of a Casual time Loop:In the first two movies astronauts go forward in time only to out that earth as evolved into planet where APes are dominent and humans have become two species: Mute primitive cavemen above ground or Mutant humans underground; their incursion starts a war between the Apes and the Mutants in which the earth is destroyed by a doomesaby bomb; in the suceeding movies several of the Apes have used the spaceship to go back into time to the 20th century; they are killed by a paranoid human world; however one survies and leads the APes against the humans nucleur war which leaves the Apes Dominent and Humans devolutioned for 1,300 years until the Astronaugts land in the future....and the process starts all over again... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.49.184.215 (talk) 16:20, 3 October 2021 (UTC)