shen

Teacher, Ph.S.







Posts: 485

Teacher, Ph.S. The Interval Conservation Theory of Time Travel Quote Select Post

Select Post Deselect Post

Deselect Post Link to Post

Link to Post Member Give Gift

Member Back to Top Post by shen on





Time travel is said to be impossible for two reasons - it is usually agreed that to move back in time, an object would have to move faster than the speed of light, which, according to most models, would require an impossible amount of energy. But another argument is that time travel would create "causality paradoxes" and that it is therefore impossible. I here present a counter-argument to this assumption. I propose that time travel to the past not only causes no paradoxes, it also causes no changes to our present.







Let us imagine a light bulb. This light bulb is linked to a sensor that's particularly sensitive; and if one shines a light upon it, the bulb will shut down, forever. So the thought experiment is simple: a bulb that can emit light, but will cease functioning if it receives light.







Now, imagine that the rays of light somehow get sent back into the past. So, at 12:00 we have a light bulb (off). At 12:01 we turn the light bulb on, which emits light. At 12:02 this light enters a sort of wormhole of some kind, and exits into the past, at 11:59. The naive assumption is to assume that this light will hit the bulb sensor, making it impossible for it to shine a light when comes 12:01. In which case the rays of light can never exist, causing a paradox.







The apparent paradox is actually but an illusion, caused by the fact we are forgetting an important aspect of reality: it moves.







Every objects in the universe is in constant motion on the axis of time, moving forward at the rate of 1 second towards the future, for every seconds that pass. After the bulb emits the light at 12:01, one second later this light falls into the time travel device at 12:02. When this light is sent to the past, it reaches the light bulb located in the past. The light bulb located in the present still exists. And when the bulb in the past cease functioning at 12:00, the original light bulb is now located at 12:03, and is not affected by the light; for the light is located in the past, along with the malfunctioning bulb. The bulb in the present is preserved from the effects of the past, simply because it is, like all objects, moving away from the past, at the rate of a second every seconds.







All of matter is but a record of the past. The position of objects is determined by the result of their past momentum and direction. And therefore the "true" past might change, but this will not affect the objects in the present, as they have already recorded their version of their past. An analogy would be reading a book. Imagine I give you a book where "A" is written on page one, then "B" on page two, etc. As you read, you record "A" in your memory, then "B", etc. If I go back to secretly change the pages to "Z" instead, and then "Y", this does not change the timeline you have memorized from your own reading, which is "A", then "B". Similarly, if something went back in time to deactivate the bulb in the past, the bulb in the present would still constitute the "living memory" of the original unaltered timeline, and continue working properly.







This hypothesis has several powerful, noteworthy implications. It implies, for one, that travel to the past would not result in any changes in the present. Going back to kill Hitler would only prevent the rise of the Nazis in that past time frame; the present will continue remembering the rise of the Nazis and their effects on the present world. The argument can be reformulated to address the "grandfather paradox" - going back in time to kill your grandfather would not prevent you from existing, because your existence constitutes the memory of your grandfather in your original timeline, which is safely located in the present. Although the grandfather would die in the new past, records of him having a child will be preserved in the original present, along with you. The change in the past can never reach the present, due to the fact the present, along with its records, is "running" away at the rate of a second every seconds. An interval is conserved between the two time frames, preventing the past from interacting with the present, effectively cutting them into two different universes with different records (one original, and one modified). This implication may be considered a prediction, making our hypothesis an official theory. The prediction may therefore be formulated as such: according to the Time Interval Conservation Theory of time travel, we will not notice any effects from potential time travelers, at least not from those that traveled to our past. Sending a light back in time will not cause the present bulb to cease functioning, eliminating any of the assumed paradoxes.







Another paradox that can be solved with our simple theory is the famous Ontological Paradox. If I were to go back in time to give Shakespeare the complete work of Shakespeare, the complete work of Shakespeare will nevertheless constitute a record of the original Shakespeare writing his books. And even though the Shakespeare in the new past might not write any longer, this will not prevent his work from existing, as the books are the result of a different timeline - the original one.







With this I hope it can be seen that most of the perceived paradoxes are the result of incomplete assumptions, and that they are solved by realizing the presence of an interval that is conserved, between the events, on the axis of time.



is said to be impossible for two reasons - it is usually agreed that to move back in time, an object would have to move faster than the speed of light, which, according to most models, would require an impossible amount of energy. But another argument is that time travel would create "causality paradoxes" and that it is therefore impossible. I here present a counter-argument to this assumption. I propose that time travel to the past not only causes no paradoxes, it also causes no changes to our present.Let us imagine a light bulb. This light bulb is linked to a sensor that's particularly sensitive; and if one shines a light upon it, the bulb will shut down, forever. So the thought experiment is simple: a bulb that can emit light, but will cease functioning if it receives light.Now, imagine that the rays of light somehow get sent back into the past. So, at 12:00 we have a light bulb (off). At 12:01 we turn the light bulb on, which emits light. At 12:02 this light enters a sort of wormhole of some kind, and exits into the past, at 11:59. The naive assumption is to assume that this light will hit the bulb sensor, making it impossible for it to shine a light when comes 12:01. In which case the rays of light can never exist, causing a paradox.The apparent paradox is actually but an illusion, caused by the fact we are forgetting an important aspect of reality: it moves.Every objects in the universe is in constant motion on the axis of time, moving forward at the rate of 1 second towards the future, for every seconds that pass. After the bulb emits the light at 12:01, one second later this light falls into the time travel device at 12:02. When this light is sent to the past, it reaches the light bulb located in the past. The light bulb located in the present still exists. And when the bulb in the past cease functioning at 12:00, the original light bulb is now located at 12:03, and is not affected by the light; for the light is located in the past, along with the malfunctioning bulb. The bulb in the present is preserved from the effects of the past, simply because it is, like all objects, moving away from the past, at the rate of a second every seconds.All of matter is but a record of the past. The position of objects is determined by the result of their past momentum and direction. And therefore the "true" past might change, but this will not affect the objects in the present, as they have already recorded their version of their past. An analogy would be reading a book. Imagine I give you a book where "A" is written on page one, then "B" on page two, etc. As you read, you record "A" in your memory, then "B", etc. If I go back to secretly change the pages to "Z" instead, and then "Y", this does not change the timeline you have memorized from your own reading, which is "A", then "B". Similarly, if something went back in time to deactivate the bulb in the past, the bulb in the present would still constitute the "living memory" of the original unaltered timeline, and continue working properly.This hypothesis has several powerful, noteworthy implications. It implies, for one, that travel to the past would not result in any changes in the present. Going back to kill Hitler would only prevent the rise of the Nazis in that past time frame; the present will continue remembering the rise of the Nazis and their effects on the present world. The argument can be reformulated to address the "grandfather paradox" - going back in time to kill your grandfather would not prevent you from existing, because your existence constitutes the memory of your grandfather in your original timeline, which is safely located in the present. Although the grandfather would die in the new past, records of him having a child will be preserved in the original present, along with you. The change in the past can never reach the present, due to the fact the present, along with its records, is "running" away at the rate of a second every seconds. An interval is conserved between the two time frames, preventing the past from interacting with the present, effectively cutting them into two different universes with different records (one original, and one modified). This implication may be considered a prediction, making our hypothesis an official theory. The prediction may therefore be formulated as such: according to the Time Interval Conservation Theory of time travel, we will not notice any effects from potential time travelers, at least not from those that traveled to our past. Sending a light back in time will not cause the present bulb to cease functioning, eliminating any of the assumed paradoxes.Another paradox that can be solved with our simple theory is the famous Ontological Paradox. If I were to go back in time to give Shakespeare the complete work of Shakespeare, the complete work of Shakespeare will nevertheless constitute a record of the original Shakespeare writing his books. And even though the Shakespeare in the new past might not write any longer, this will not prevent his work from existing, as the books are the result of a different timeline - the original one.With this I hope it can be seen that most of the perceived paradoxes are the result of incomplete assumptions, and that they are solved by realizing the presence of an interval that is conserved, between the events, on the axis of time.