Talk:Time travel

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search


replacement for wretched wording and markup[edit]

   A colleague (who didn't take the trouble to encourage constructive discussion by even saving -- for those who care who the colleague is or when they held forth -- the trouble of searching the edit history) did add to Time travel#Tourism in time the following comment markup (to which i've added meta-markup, on this talk page, trying to make the markup display in a more intuitively clear way here):

"This picture would explain why we haven't been over run [sic]
<!-- several people have tried to edit this, but note that it says "over run" rather than "overrun" in the original essay on Hawking's website, and direct quotes should match the original source so please don't change it -->
by tourists from the future."

   The colleague's concern for non-misrepresentation is praiseworthy, even tho the wording "have tried to edit" reeks too much of the Inquisition or the Klan, and the typographic travesty that is their solution may not even be appropriate for some critical edition of Hawking's works. Here -- leaving behind the pedants' concern about who (Hawking, an editor, a typesetter?) is responsible for the inappropriate internal space -- is an encyclopedia-appropriate version of the passage:

"This picture would explain why we haven't been [overrun] by tourists from the future."

It's literate, harmless, almost devoid of distraction, and not significantly better nor worse than

Stephen Hawking says that this picture would explain why our times haven't been overrun by "tourists from the future."{{cn|date=January 2015}}

--Jerzyt 04:21 & 07:05, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Not sure if "time travel" is possible but time machine(s) do exist apparently[edit]

Those who have them want me to think that particle accelerators are actually time machines. There is even a documentary called "The World's First Time Machine" (https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0867212/) which suggests that they are only able to receive messages from the future using their time machines. I posted about it on the reddit "conspiracy" sub (https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy) and now believe that everyone but me already know about the existence of time machine(s). Might want to update the article with information about real life time machine(s) or mention something like "if they exist, they are classified...". Otherwise even articles labeled "good" like this one - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_biosphere - shouldn't be believed. By the way, I noticed that the article about particle accelerators is not labeled "good" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Particle_accelerator). ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.57.84.115 (talk) 05:52, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[]

Earth's motion and Time Travel[edit]

Hello. I was looking for something on this page that would address the problem of Earth's motion when it comes to time travel. For instance, if I traveled forward or backward in time one minute to my current location, which is a spot currently occupied by the crust of the Earth, I would presumably then be at a point inside the Earth or in outer space because while I have not moved, the Earth has moved. When there is discussion of going back to the far past or far future, I always wonder how travel to that distant location lightyears away from Earth's present position is accomplished. The Earth moves, so you have to get to where the Earth was at or will be if you want to time travel somewhere beside the cold void of space. Maybe time travelers have done it, but they accidentally found themselves in outer space since the Earth moved. Is there anything on this page or in the literature that discusses this locational displacement problem? I would hate to be the one who creates time travel only to accidently time travel to one's present location one minute later, which is now a spot in the Earth's core or in deep space since the Earth has moved. Geographyinitiative (talk) 20:42, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[]

Well, this is not the place to ask these questions. Here on on the article talk paes, we can only discuss the state of the article, not the subject — see wp:Talk page guidelines. You can ask the question on our wp:Reference desk/Science. Good luck there. - DVdm (talk) 21:00, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[]
I made a comnent there. I think it is appropriate to discuss here as well. Geographyinitiative (talk) 21:10, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[]
Here we can only discuss additions, changes and removals to/from the article. The discussion that you have in mind is inappropriate here, as you can see on top of this talk page:
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Time travel article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Hope this helps. - DVdm (talk) 21:47, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[]

Why two "physics" sections?[edit]

I don't understand why there are two top-level sections for addressing the concept in physics: "Time travel in physics" and "Forward time travel in physics". Surely the latter is a subtopic of the former? Or if they are kept separate, shouldn't the former be "Backward time travel in physics" for symmetry? Reading the former section with all of its uncertainty and speculation – when we know that forward time travel is possible – was confusing until I found the latter section tucked below it as if an afterthought.-Jason A. Quest (talk) 23:55, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[]

The first section is more precisely titled "Arbitrary time travel in physics" (in the sense of an arbitrary point in spacetime in the past or future) while the second section is more precisely titled "Time-dilation forward time travel" (as opposed to using time dilation for backward time travel such as through a wormhole). However, the current titles are perfectly clear if you read the sections instead of just reading the titles. WikiPacer (talk) 04:07, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[]
Those are not the actual section headers in this article. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 20:40, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[]

The concept of a time machine likely has stand-alone notability[edit]

Right now this redirects here and never had a separate article on English Wikipedia (I noticed it does on pl wiki, and several others; here's the wikidata entry [1]). And here's an interesting source: [2]. I haven't done much lit review but there are plenty of uses of the term, some pretty close to the basic concept (consider [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]... the term is actually used a lot in physics!), but this one is decent, and here could be an interesting article on a relatively major topic related to fiction (and even science??) that could be created... would anyone be interested in working on it? The topic has a stand-alone entry in the SF encyclopedia: [9], separate from their entry on time travel. Ping User:Haleth, User:Toughpigs - this time not re deletion/rescuing, but maybe we can try to write a new entry together for a change? Any sources you could throw at me here would be appreciated. (Btw, I checked and the concept sadly does not seem to have a stand-alone entry in The Greenwood Encyclopedia of Science Fiction and Fantasy: Themes, Works, and Wonders nor The Mammoth Encyclopedia of Science Fiction). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:12, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[]

I think the concept of "time machine" is independently notable and verifiable as a concept, both as a scientific theory and as a well known trope in works of fiction. I suspect the reason why it has never had a standalone article on Wikipedia is because the existence of Time travel in fiction as an article, which seems to be based around the seminal 1895 work as the progenitor of the trope. The issue I can identify here...will a standalone "time machine" end up being a Redundant content fork of either article in terms of content? Most of the academic sources certainly overlap with the sort of content we can find in time travel, and portrayals of time machines in fiction certainly falls under Time travel in fiction. If we are satisfied that it falls under an acceptable type of content forking and spinning it out would be appropriate, the question then becomes, should "time machine" be isolated and discussed as a concept unto itself by drawing from both the scientific studies from the time travel article and the fiction-oriented sources from time travel in fiction, possibly cutting and pasting all that information into the proposed article? Or maybe keep the status quo as it is, but expand the time machine aspect on both articles with the sources you have found? Haleth (talk) 14:51, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[]

Potential narratives about backwards time travel that may pre-date the 18th century[edit]

There are 2 pages that talk about narratives in which travelling back in time is mentioned. The page Mohave traditional narratives as well as Journey to the West in the "Sequels" section. I'm not absolutely sure that these 2 time travel narratives are not later-date additions to Mohave folklore and to the "Supplement to the Journey to the West" book, though. Is it certain that they're not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dominic inquisitive (talkcontribs) 22:24, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[]

Please sign all your talk page messages with four tildes (~~~~) — See Help:Using talk pages. Thanks. - DVdm (talk) 08:40, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[]