All speculation on time travel end out in either paradoxes or infinities.
You are basically wasting your time, time travel is an impossible fantasy and not reality.
Time can be slowed, but there is no way it's possible to travel back in time, because the past no longer exist. So there is nowhere to travel to.
In the same way the future does not exist yet, so you can't "travel" to that either.
Time can however be somewhat suspended locally, so if you are suspended in time locally, it will appear as if you are traveling to the future. But in reality you are merely progressing in time faster at a slower pace locally.
this post was submitted on 10 Jan 2025
18 points (100.0% liked)
No Stupid Questions
36300 readers
937 users here now
No such thing. Ask away!
!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.
The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:
Rules (interactive)
Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.
All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.
Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.
Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.
Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.
Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.
Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.
That's it.
Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.
Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.
Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.
Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.
On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.
If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.
Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.
If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.
Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.
Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.
Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.
Let everyone have their own content.
Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.
Credits
Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!
The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
You assume the past and present no longer exist. You have no proof of this.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternalism_(philosophy_of_time)
Maybe not because you can't prove a negative, but since there is no proof that it exist, there is no rational reason to believe it does.
It's all wishful thinking and speculation for hundreds of years with nothing to show for it.
I do however have the proof of logic, because if they do exist, all sorts of logical inconsistencies arise. Which is why fantasies about it, always end out in either infinities or paradoxes.
I can't prove an invisible pink unicorn isn't in my room either. But I can say I can't see hear or otherwise detect it's presence, even after thorough investigation, and closing the room off for an extended period of time. I still can't prove it, but the logical conclusion is the complete an utter lack and absence of an invisible pink unicorn in my room.
And yet, you've concocted this fantasy that you call "the present," as if such a thing could exist in a relativistic universe...
That's not a concoction or a fantasy, but the actual reality. Or are you trying to argue the present doesn't exist?
Time is seemingly an emergent property of causality. But the exact nature of what time is exactly, is not well understood.
Basic principles about whether time is linear or quantized isn't even entirely clear.
But to argue the present doesn't exist is like arguing nothing really exists, and then I don't really have anything to say to you, because that's like solipsism and that's absolute nonsense not worth debating.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativity_of_simultaneity
The present does not exist. From the previous link:
It can be argued that special relativity eliminates the concept of absolute simultaneity and a universal present: according to the relativity of simultaneity, observers in different frames of reference can have different measurements of whether a given pair of events happened at the same time or at different times, with there being no physical basis for preferring one frame's judgments over those of another. However, there are events that may be non-simultaneous in all frames of reference: when one event is within the light cone of another—its causal past or causal future—then observers in all frames of reference show that one event preceded the other. The causal past and causal future are consistent within all frames of reference, but any other time is "elsewhere", and within it there is no present, past, or future. There is no physical basis for a set of events that represents the present.
Many philosophers have argued that relativity implies eternalism.[6] Philosopher of science Dean Rickles says that, "the consensus among philosophers seems to be that special and general relativity are incompatible with presentism.
If two observers will disagree on which events happened in "the present," then "the present" cannot exist as a real universal entity. "The present" only makes any physical sense in classical, pre-20th century Newtonian mechanics.
This is why the block universe or eternalism makes more sense.
It can be argued that special relativity eliminates the concept of absolute simultaneity
That's not the same thing. Obviously all experiences are delayed, and therefore about the past, even if it is merely picoseconds.
In that way we can only experience the past, that is obvious, and not relevant to the existence of an objective present.
Although we can only experience the present with some delay depending on circumstances, (can be billions of years astronomically) there is zero doubt that there is an objective "present" we all experience and act according to.
You're still imagining that there is some fixed universe playing out at constant time, and that we all just experience the echoes of this present in different orders. This isn't what relativity says. Clocks traveling near the speed of light don't just appear to slow down, they actually slow down.
Different regions of the universe don't even experience the same flow rate of time. Someone living on a mountaintop experiences time faster than someone at sea level. And yet you cling to this fantasy of their being some universal "present." You cannot have a universal present in a universe composed of different flow rates of time!
Clocks traveling near the speed of light don’t just appear to slow down, they actually slow down.
Which is EXACTLY the ONLY thing I said you can actually do.
You can slow down time locally. And for a photon it's slowed down to a standstill.
That does not contradict ANYTHING I've claimed.
Yes, you recognize the fact, but you haven't internalized its implications. You can only have a universal present in a universe of shared time. Ultimately, "the present" is something applicable to and that exists within the mind of a single observer.
One of the hallmarks of science is that different people can independently measure something and confirm its existence. If no two observers can ever agree on what constitutes "the present," then how can "the present" be said to exist at all? It's a fundamentally unscientific concept.
Ultimately, “the present” is something applicable to and that exists within the mind of a single observer.
No, it's an objective thing. No observation can be exactly "at the present", I clearly explained that earlier, there are always delays, that doesn't change the fact that like a photo is not the past being real, so it is far all observations. That doesn't change the fact that there is an objective "present".
One of the hallmarks of science is that different people can independently measure something and confirm its existence. If no two observers can ever agree on what constitutes “the present,” then how can “the present” be said to exist at all? It’s a fundamentally unscientific concept.
Oh boy, yes I know that argument, and it's a flawed argument IMO. It's about definition. If we agree to meet somewhere at the same time, then when we meet we are at the present. There is no sane argument about that IMO. We perceive each other with a slight latency, but that does not prevent us from being together in the present.
To argue the present doesn't exist is nonsense, and no more than a philosophical curiosity. Scientists absolutely work with a present too, and obviously compensate for latency.
I could ask the same question reversed: How can scientists compensate for latency to a degree they can measure gravitational waves, without an objective time frame, that requires acknowledgement of a present?
I feel like just talking about the buying power of money or even the ability to effectively duplicate stuff is missing something: assuming your time travel actually allows you to change the past, and it doesn't just end up in a situation where you can only fulfill a timeline that always existed, you can take technology to the past too.
Go back to the beginning of civilization and give them current technology (or even the beginning of time, and found a new civilization there). Then do it again (or if you don't, someone else will eventually) with the new tech developed off the existing stuff over time. Repeated ad nauseum, you end up with a situation where civilization has and since the beginning has always had, every single technology it is physically possible to create.
You get the same kind of issues as "the singularity" (the concept where a super intelligent AI improves itself exponentially until it is as powerful as is possible to be). As such, our entire concept of markets and money and economy are likely completely obsolete, because find yourself in a universe populated by something as close as is physically possible to become to gods.
Assuming the following conditions:
-
Energy is not conserved - that is, you expend less energy traveling to the past than the net energy value of something you send to or bring from the past.
-
It takes approximately 1 minute for the time machine to recharge and target a new time and location after use.
-
The time machine can transport any object that can be contained in a space, but the space is fairly easy to expand. Think, "setting up a tent".
All of this, I should emphasize, horribly breaks physics. But it's not a stupid question. The answer is, essentially, "the economy, as we know it, collapses."
A lot of people are going to point out that you can duplicate energy sources, items, etc... by bringing them from the past. Yes, that's true. But what people are missing is that this enables exponential growth as well:
-
I buy a gold coin. I put it in a large space.
-
2 minutes later, I set my time machine to go 1 minute back in time, collect the coin from myself, bring it to the present. Now I have 2 gold coins.
-
2 minutes later, I do this again - collecting the 2 gold coins and bringing them to the (new) present. Now I have 4 gold coins.
-
An hour later of doing this, I have over 536 million gold coins.
This works for any reasonably sized object, by the way. A hamburger. A tank of oil. That sweet RTX 5090 for your new gaming rig. A nuclear warhead.
Society, as we know it, isn't to survive this. The Earth probably isn't going to survive this. The universe may very well not, although we've already broken so many laws of physics getting to this point that it's a wash anyway.
tl;dr - time machines as popular culture imagines them are a cheat code.
2 minutes later, I set my time machine to go 1 minute back in time, collect the coin from myself, bring it to the present. Now I have 2 gold coins.
I don’t follow. If you took the coin from the past, it no longer exists in the present. You still have 1 coin. You are duplicated, however, and now two of you exist in the present timeline. You could do the duplication glitch by taking the present timeline coin back to the past and giving it to past self, who now has two coins.
If I steal a gold coin from the year 2000, then, with that coin in hand, travel to 1999 and steal the same coin, I now have two copies. I then travel to 1998, 1997, et cetera, et cetera, on down the line, each time I gain an additional copy of the same coin. I then take all these coins with me to the present and spend them. Now just swap out the years for 2 minute intervals and you've got an infinite number of coins, or nearly so, anyway.
If the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics is true, it implies that everything that can happen will happen - or has already happened. If time travel is possible, this would include every possible outcome of you traveling to the past and altering events.
What I think would happen is that nothing would change in this timeline. Instead, you’d simply travel to another timeline where you made those changes, and you’d experience the consequences of your actions there. However, it’s also possible that such a scenario doesn’t align with the laws of physics, meaning that nothing would happen because time travel to the past - and any related interference - might simply be impossible.
Is energy being conserved? Because otherwise you would have an infinite energy source....
I think the most meaningful response is that effects on the economy wouldn't be an issue because reality itself would break. Backward time travel would violate causality (cause and effect).
If you go back in time, even a microscopic alteration in events would lead to the universe being different than the one you came from in 2025, but how could you have come from the universe as it was in our 2025 if that universe never came to be because you changed how things would proceed when you visited the past?
I think it was Alan Dean Foster who said (paraphrased) that time travel is impossible not because time travel is impossible but because there's a certain point where all of the time traveling that can be done will have been done.
The only downside is that you never know if you're on the final loop or not, so everything you do may be the most important thing you will ever do, or it may not matter at all.
You'd have to find the oldest bills you can find, time travel to the year they were issued, trade for older currency, time travel further back, and repeat until you're at the point in time where the currency's relative value is sufficient for your goals. So there's that; it would be inefficient. I suppose you could travel with gold...
And rather than buying stuff, just put it in a bank you know would survive until present day and let it collect interest (or invest based on future knowledge, etc).
Ok......but wouldn't some red flags be raised when you go to withdraw and they say "YOU are the person who opened this account?" "Yes." "In 1824?" "Yes."
“Oh it was my grandfather, I got the same name and here is his will.”
Arbitrage would iron out market inefficiencies across time as well as space.
If you are standing in your shower (shower thoughts) and try to travel 200 years back, your location in space is not where the solar system, nor the earth was 200 years ago. So there’s that…
Physics-wise, the only conceived ways to time travel to the past is either FTL travel or wormholes, with the latter requiring “exotic matter” to stabilize, and even then, you can’t go back to any arbitrary time. Nobody knows if exotic matter actually exists. FTL seems off the board.
There are mechanisms in place to keep history and the past safe for historians.
I think our global economy is safe.
Maybe space is somewhat relative to time?
Of course THOSE theories don't work, we haven't yet figured out the one that will.
There would be machines which produce energy in any form where source is future.
Essentially infinite energy solution. So humans would essentially have infinite energy but if you are allowed to go anywhere in time then why would you stay i ln present. You would immigrate (for lack of better word) to a time when is most suitable and to your liking. You would die in 80 years why do you want to spend time in current world time if you can do better.
It would become like a multiple reality world where like minded people would come together in same reality and people who disagree with them go to their own echo chambers. I belive most people would be looking for fundamental human desires like food, comfort and sex so people will go to time where they get it most easily.
So the easiest thing would be to buy cheap commodities that were expensive back then, go back in time and sell, then buy some kind of property or like shares in ibm. You could easily make a lot of money.
But you wouldn’t really be creating wealth, you would just be making it so you end up with it instead of someone else.
The best way to create wealth (assuming you can’t just create energy in the time travel process) is to take technology back.
Taking tech back (making a company with it so your rich too) would actually make humanity have a higher total wealth.
I personally would take solar cells and modern batteries back in time, might as well do some good with it.
Does everyone know that time travel exists? Or is it like a secret? If there was only one, whoever controlled it either way would be all powerful and immediate ruler of all people on Earth. There's literally nothing you wouldn't be able to do, and no force could stop you. Economics would be yours to control.
If everyone had access to time machines, it would be chaos. Markets literally would grind to a halt, because time travelers would be perpetually competing to be 1 second ahead of their competitors, all the way back to the beginning of time. Humanity would inevitably destroy itself.
weed probably end up with a small group of ultra wealthy controlling most of the world wealth
.........so, what's different in this scenario?
If that happens, I think the economy will suddenly always have been the least of our problems.