Talk:Time travel

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Physics (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Time (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Time, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Time on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Science Fiction (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Fiction, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science fiction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Philosophy (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
 

WP:LEAD need improving[edit]

Given the length and level of detail of this article, the lead is woefully inadequate. The lead should be a summary of the article that should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article by establishing context, explaining why the topic is notable, and summarizing the most important points, as stated in WP:LEAD. That's not what it's doing now. Requesting assistance and feedback for improvements to lead. BlackHades (talk) 20:08, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. I've added tag which might get the attention of some more editors. In the absence of any assistance I will have a go myself, but not right now, as I'm a bit tied up time-wise (pun intended). Jodon | Talk 13:58, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
I've started expanding it. It still does need more expansion though. But any thoughts or suggestions are welcome in the meantime. Jodon | Talk 20:48, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
I'm inclined to suggest, nay, propose, that the article be split into two or more articles as the casual reader must needs be daunted by the breadth of the article as it stands. It strikes me that Time travel in literature is really a very different category than the scientific concept, which has dimensions in physics, mathematics and logic. ZarhanFastfire (talk) 06:55, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
I agree with this proposal. This article is trying to cover two distinct topics: time travel in literature and time travel as a hypothetical phenomenon in the real world. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 22:04, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Category:Time travelers[edit]

Would this be a defining aspect of a character worthy of categorizing? CensoredScribe (talk) 04:12, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

No.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 16:16, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

What to call this[edit]

Frequently seen in fiction: Stacey puts Jim into a trance and sends him back 20 years. For Jim, 5 minutes later, while walking down the street, Jim stubs his toe. We see that Stacey has been monitoring Jim for that 5 minute interval without incident, then future Jim moans with the pain that his past self experiences from stubbing his toe - as if future and past are two different places which are "synchronized" so that the 5 minutes after Jim's arrival in the past some how correlates in a causative way with Jim's existence in the future. Or Ed goes into the past and 4 days later destroys the MacGuffin Box, then we see those who remained in the future waiting and then voila 4 days after Ed's departure to the past, the MacGuffin Box disappears. Does this dopey plot device have an official name? "Dopey Synchrony" ? MistySpock (talk) 02:31, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Unless this discussion is going to result in an improvement to the Time travel article here on Wikipedia, please review WP:NOTFORUM and limit your contributions to article Talk pages to the discussion of such improvements. Thanks. Dwpaul Talk 03:13, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
   Point 4 of the cited policy-page subsection actually does say "talk pages exist for the purpose of discussing how to improve articles", and IMO leading with "Unless this discussion is going to result in an improvement ..." in responding neglects WP:AGF, which IMO includes having enough imagination to realize that (while "Dopey Synchrony" is unlikely to be an accepted term) suggesting (however obliquely) directions like treating a sub-topic Temporal paradox#Displaced synchrony (or some other section title that hasn't occurred to me, for this approach to resolving paradoxes) is part of improving articles.
   (BTW, some of our editors and talk readers may not be aware of our article MacGuffin.)
--Jerzyt 03:23, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Need examples in literature of this?[edit]

In the paradoxes section, there is this statement: "On the other hand, Stephen Hawking has argued that even if the MWI is correct, we should expect each time traveler to experience a single self-consistent history, so that time travelers remain within their own world rather than traveling to a different one." But then in the discussion of the theories as played out in literature, in the Type 3 universe, this type of scenario isn't talked about. 108.84.252.8 (talk) 13:38, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

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)

The Mahabharata[edit]

The story in mahabharatha specifically say about the speed difference of time in different dimensions. Which can be compared easily with time dilation in modern physics. Thus the topic is inappropriate in the context. Please review and take necessary measures.Vishnujithts (talk) 14:06, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

It's unclear to me what you mean by "the topic is inappropriate in the context" and what change(s) you are proposing to the article. Perhaps it will be more clear to another editor, but you may want to explain in more detail what it is you are suggesting and why, in case not. Dwpaul Talk 14:21, 1 April 2015 (UTC)