Talk:Time travel/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Earth's motion and Time Travel

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?

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)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 December 2021

i want to make the definition more clear LUTTAPI444 (talk) 13:27, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. DanCherek (talk) 13:45, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

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

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)

Agree: there's no need for a separate article. Time travel in fiction can cover any examples of time machines in speculative fiction, and Time travel can cover any examples in speculative science. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 20:54, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Presentism vs Eternalism

This section needs more clarity and references. The paragraph "Presentism in classical spacetime deems that only the present exists; this is not reconcilable with special relativity, shown in the following example: " merely asserts the incompatibility of presentism with special relativity. But that assertion is the point of contention. I find the phrase "Presentism in classical spacetime" to be ambiguous. It needs some definition. Also, the argument for eternalism appears to be a form of that of Putnam, H. 1995. Time and Physical Geometry. In Mathematics, Matter and Method, Philosophical Papers, Vol. I., 2nd edition, pp. 198-205. Cambridge University Press. I suggest that reference be added. (Personally I find Putnam's argument unpersuasive and flawed).Theophilus71 (talk) 18:15, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

The whole section on time travel is nonsensical, in that the wiki states that in essence fwd and backwards travel is permissible in the Standard Model. No, it isn't. If you say it is, then please reference how and where it be permissible. Super hero nonsense has taken over science. Time Travel is fiction. FICTION. It is sure fun, but it is nonsense. 64.179.163.41 (talk) 15:05, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Science fiction template

the science fiction template should not be on this page as this would be real. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:18D:4700:2D30:7036:813F:CCBD:B905 (talk) 21:01, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

I have removed it for the reason that the navbox contains no link to this article (it does link to Time travel in fiction). -- Dr Greg  talk  21:25, 12 October 2022 (UTC)