Time Travel Paradox Ideas - Except Grandfather

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

This discussion centers on various time travel paradoxes, excluding the well-known grandfather paradox. Participants explore concepts such as the implications of time travel on causality, using examples from popular culture like "Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventure" and "Doctor Who." The conversation highlights the complexity of paradoxes, including the fire alarm paradox and the pool ball scenario, emphasizing the challenges of maintaining a stable reality in time travel narratives. Additionally, the discussion references Robert Heinlein's works, particularly "--All You Zombies--" and "By His Bootstraps," as exemplary treatments of time travel without paradoxes.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of time travel concepts and theories
  • Familiarity with popular culture references in time travel narratives
  • Knowledge of causality and its implications in theoretical physics
  • Awareness of literary works by Robert Heinlein
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the "Many-Worlds Interpretation" of quantum mechanics
  • Explore the concept of causality in physics
  • Read Robert Heinlein's "--All You Zombies--" for insights on time travel
  • Analyze time travel paradoxes in films and literature, focusing on "Looper" and "Triangle"
USEFUL FOR

Science fiction enthusiasts, philosophers, and anyone interested in the theoretical implications of time travel and paradoxes in literature and film.

Viru.universe
Messages
28
Reaction score
0
Hey guyies, can i get some really interesting and crazy paradoxes, except the grandfather one, thank you
 
Physics news on Phys.org
At some point in human history the solution to Y is developed. The chrononaut takes it back in time and uses it to solve Y in the past, preventing the development of the solution.

Y might be a disease, mortality, global warming, poverty, whatnot.
 
All time travel paradoxes are the grandfather paradox just expressed differently.
With the possible exception of if you meet yourself. I'm not sure if the entire human body
is regrown over time or just parts of it (maybe someone here can say?)

If the entire body is regrown over time I guess there is no paradox.
If it isn't - that may constitute one?
 
Trollegionaire said:
Time travel is physically impossible.

Is there a difference between physically impossible and just impossible? I don't understand what "physically" has to do with it... ?
 
My favorite is the fire alarm (pop quiz) paradox. An announcement is made that there will be a surprise fire alarm next week but the exact day will be a surprise. Obviously it can't be on Friday because if it hasn't been on any of the previous days it wouldn't be a surprise on Friday. That means it can't be on Thursday either because if it can't be on Friday and it hasn't been on Monday Tuesday or Wednesday, it wouldn't be a surprise on Thursday. The same reasoning is repeated for Wednesday, Tuesday and Monday.
 
@skeptic2,
wow that's a nice one!
But on thursday, the students don't know whether the test will be today or tomorrow, that is they are not 100% confirmed, so if the test in on thursday, it'll be a surprise right?
 
Viru.universe said:
Hey guyies, can i get some really interesting and crazy paradoxes, except the grandfather one, thank you
My favorite is from Bill & Ted's excellent adventure. Their time machine had the strange property that the return trip has to be the same "length" (in time) as the trip. So if they go back 100 years, spend 5 minutes there, and then go "home", they will end up in the place they left, 5 minutes after they left it.

Early in the movie, Bill mentioned that the key to his father's car had been missing for a week, and that the father was sure that Bill had taken it.

(The quotes below aren't actual quotes; I'm paraphrasing).

Here's the paradox: Near the end of the movie, Bill and Ted need to go to school to take a test. To get there in time, they need to take the car. But the keys are missing. So Ted suggests "let's go back in time a week and take the keys". Bill answers "we don't have time" (because they have to leave immediately to not be late). So Ted says "OK, so how about this. We take the car to school and take the test. Then we go back in time a week, take the keys, and put them...under that rock". Bill agrees, so they walk up to the rock, lift it, and grab the keys from under it. As they're walking to the car, Bill says "Your dad was right. It was you who took the keys".

There are also some great paradoxes in the Doctor Who episode "Blink". It's a great episode, and you can see it even if you haven't seen any others. There's more than one paradox in the episode. The best one is the video conversation between The Doctor (David Tennant) and Sally Sparrow (Carey Mulligan).
 
Pool ball is sent into the corner pocket. The corner pocket is the entrance to a time machine. The exit from the time machine is the side pocket.

The time machine only sends the pool ball far enough back in time that it hits the pool ball headed towards the corner pocket.

If neither the original pool ball nor the time traveled pool ball enter the corner pocket after the collision, then there is no pool ball to be ejected from the side pocket, the collision can't occur, and the original pool ball is never deflected. In which case it enters the corner pocket ... You have an unstable reality that can't exist unless it doesn't exist.

If the time travel pool ball deflects the original pool ball, but not enough for it to not go in the corner pocket, then you have a stable reality. No problem.

If the time travel pool ball deflects the original pool away from the pocket, but then enters the pocket itself, you also have a stable reality. Except now you have a loop created entirely by the time travel pool ball.

The last was supposed to be the concept of the movie "Looper", but it was badly done. In other words, by the end, you had an unstable reality that couldn't possibly exist unless it didn't exist, etc.
 
BobG said:
The last was supposed to be the concept of the movie "Looper", but it was badly done. In other words, by the end, you had an unstable reality that couldn't possibly exist unless it didn't exist, etc.
It was much better realized in Chris Smith's "Triangle"(2009).
 
  • #10
Bandersnatch said:
It was much better realized in Chris Smith's "Triangle"(2009).

A quite underrated movie. I loved that one.
 
  • #11
I'll throw my two cents in:

Read Heinlein's short story called "--All You Zombies--" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/"—All_You_Zombies—"). It probably sets the world record for best time travel story ever. I never quite figured it all out, but I'm pretty confident that every character in the story is the same person. If I recall, it's only 10-20 pages long. Read it. It's worth it.

Here's the full story:
http://faculty.uca.edu/rnovy/Heinlein--All%20you%20zombies.htm
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #12
In ninth grade I read Heinlein's Time For The Stars and I recommended it to a friend. The book was about the twin paradox. He read it and used it for a book report for English. The English teacher knew nothing of relativity and gave him an F because the story didn't make any sense.
 
Last edited:
  • #13
FlexGunship said:
I'll throw my two cents in:

Read Heinlein's short story called "--All You Zombies--" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/"—All_You_Zombies—"). It probably sets the world record for best time travel story ever. I never quite figured it all out, but I'm pretty confident that every character in the story is the same person. If I recall, it's only 10-20 pages long. Read it. It's worth it.

Here's the full story:
http://faculty.uca.edu/rnovy/Heinlein--All%20you%20zombies.htm

oh ya! I know this one
its the craziest story i ever read
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #14
BobG said:
If the time travel pool ball deflects the original pool away from the pocket, but then enters the pocket itself, you also have a stable reality. Except now you have a loop created entirely by the time travel pool ball.

Actually, this would still be a paradox. From the time traveling pool ball's perspective, it would spend an eternity being involved in pool ball collisions. Eventually, the accumulated stress will shatter it. Then what?

It would be an even bigger paradox for a human in this time loop. They would soon die of dehydration and starvation and their body would eventually decay. Even if that problem were overcome, they'd age.

From the point of view of a person not in the loop, you can't say what they'd see.
 
  • #15
BobG said:
Pool ball is sent into the corner pocket. The corner pocket is the entrance to a time machine. The exit from the time machine is the side pocket.

The time machine only sends the pool ball far enough back in time that it hits the pool ball headed towards the corner pocket.

If the time travel pool ball deflects the original pool ball, but not enough for it to not go in the corner pocket, then you have a stable reality. No problem.

There may be a problem with this scenario too. If the time travel pool ball deflects the original pool ball, it too will be deflected slightly. It will enter the corner pocket and emerge from the side pocket with a slightly altered trajectory and momentum. After a number of loops it will either miss the original ball or miss the corner pocket.
 
  • #16
I like the version that goes like this: You shoot a pool ball towards the middle of the short edge of the table. Now two things can happen.

1. Nothing interesting.
2. An older version of the pool ball emerges from the side pocket and hits the side of the younger ball, deflecting its path into the corner pocket.

The cool thing about this is that neither alternative is a paradox.
 
  • #17
BobG said:
Pool ball is sent into the corner pocket. The corner pocket is the entrance to a time machine. The exit from the time machine is the side pocket.
...
The time machine only sends the pool ball far enough back in time that it hits the pool ball headed towards the corner pocket.

This is the grandfather paradox again.
 
  • #18
FlexGunship said:
I'll throw my two cents in:

Read Heinlein's short story called "--All You Zombies--" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/"—All_You_Zombies—"). It probably sets the world record for best time travel story ever. I never quite figured it all out, but I'm pretty confident that every character in the story is the same person. If I recall, it's only 10-20 pages long. Read it. It's worth it.

Here's the full story:
http://faculty.uca.edu/rnovy/Heinlein--All%20you%20zombies.htm

Also by Heinlein "By His Bootstraps" another short story
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #19
I've always felt that Heinlein's treatment of time travel was always the most intellectually rigorous. He never proposed simultaneous alternate histories (a la Back to the Future) but instead always stuck to the idea of "one dimension of time."

As a result, there were never any "paradoxes" per se; just very interesting causal loops.

Essentially, Heinlein's take on the grandfather paradox is this: "You already know that you haven't killed your grandfather. You might not know why or how you've failed, but you know that you have."

In the case of Heinlein's Time Enough for Love Lazarus Long became the strange man whom his mother loved and then went off to war and died. He wasn't his own father, but he was a part of his own childhood memories.
 
  • #20
Fredrik said:
I like the version that goes like this: You shoot a pool ball towards the middle of the short edge of the table. Now two things can happen.

1. Nothing interesting.
2. An older version of the pool ball emerges from the side pocket and hits the side of the younger ball, deflecting its path into the corner pocket.

The cool thing about this is that neither alternative is a paradox.

With regard to option number 2, and with backwards time travel in general, there always is a causality violation.
 
  • #21
Bandersnatch said:
It was much better realized in Chris Smith's "Triangle"(2009).

I watched that movie recently and it is good!

But what the heck is with the main character's shoes!? I have to admit they're nice and all, but for sailing? And she never lost them while swimming? Or fighting? Do they have some sort of symbolic meaning?
 
  • #22
In "the Man Who Folded Himself", a young man finds a time machine and uses it to move back and forth in time to the extent that there are a huge number of "copies" of himself all around. Finally, when he is so old (in his "own" time frame) he knows he will die soon, he takes the time machine back to the same time and place he found it. So where did the time machine come from?

Another "closed time loop" occurs in "Star Trek- the Voyage Home". Back in twentieth century Kirk raises the money they need by selling a pair of antique glasses. When Spock protests that the glasses were a gift from McCoy, Kirk says "That's the beauty part- they will be again", implying that McCoy will buy these specific glasses and give them to Kirk in the future. So when, if ever, were the glasses actually made?

And I am going to take this opportunity to vent: In order to be able to build a container for the whales, and all the water, they need to make "transparent aluminum". They go to a plant that where, apparently a variety of things are fabricated and shows the supervisor there the formula for "transparent aluminum". (After realizing that he can't just talk to the computer, he immediately types what must be instructions to draw the formula. Isn't it lovely that he knew the system and instructions to do that. But that's not mu point.

After Scott gives the supervisor enough information to make "transparent aluminum", Kirk protests that they could be changing the past. Scott responds "How do we know that he wasn't the inventor of transparent aluminum?" Excuse me? As long as we don't know what happened in the past its alright to do whatever we want? And, any way, Scott, being the well educated engineer that he is certainly should know who created transparent aluminum. It would have made much more sense if Scott had said "But captain, he did invent transparent aluminum". That would still be a "closed time loop" but would have made more sense.
 
  • #23
BobG said:
But what the heck is with the main character's shoes!? I have to admit they're nice and all, but for sailing?
The memories of the film are a bit hazy, no thanks to the plot being a (charmingly intriguing)bastard child of a contortionist and a schizophrenic, but I would assume she was not exactly thinking about going sailing when she had put them on.
 
  • #24
HallsofIvy said:
After realizing that he can't just talk to the computer...

Totally off topic and silly, but my daughter's workplace got a new copier. Someone made up a really nice looking sign (they even laminated it) to post above the copier announcing the workplace's new voice activated copier.

Amazing how long people will talk to the copier, trying to figure out just how the darn thing works, occasionally cursing the lack of an operator's manual.
 
  • #25
HallsofIvy said:
After Scott gives the supervisor enough information to make "transparent aluminum", Kirk protests that they could be changing the past. Scott responds "How do we know that he wasn't the inventor of transparent aluminum?" Excuse me? As long as we don't know what happened in the past its alright to do whatever we want? And, any way, Scott, being the well educated engineer that he is certainly should know who created transparent aluminum. It would have made much more sense if Scott had said "But captain, he did invent transparent aluminum". That would still be a "closed time loop" but would have made more sense.

McCoy, I think, rather than Kirk. Kirk is off flirting with the lady marine biologist. In the novelisation, though, the scene plays out more or less as you suggest. Scott is massively impressed to be meeting the guy, much to the poor man's confusion. Scott initially thinks he's got another man of the same name (Marcus something?), but the penny drops about half way through the conversation.
 
  • #26
if you think parallel universes, a travel to the past could be a travel to a universe identical but delayed in "time"
 
Last edited:
  • #27
Time travel seems logically impossible as well as physically impossible, since, even if you did it, it produces so many paradoxes
 
  • #28
Heinlein's careful poke at time travel was what you'd expect of an engineer with imagination - All You Zombies was beautifully recursive. All the characters who drove the story, were the same person at different ages, but only the oldest (if the word applies - it's somewhat inaccurate!) knew what was going on, and made the arrangements for his/her younger self to meet his/her much younger self... leading to his/her own birth.

Heinlein had some serious blind spots (cam-drive rocket autopilots, world-wide theocracies, SSTO starships that you could buy like a used car, etc) but this story was brilliant.
 
  • #29
More simple paradox

Traveling 5 days back in time and for some reason not being able to travel forward except in the normal way of 1 day at a time.

There would be two of you existing in that time, but in 5 days your original self would travel back again and now there would be two of you who have traveled back and so forth.

The only way it could happen would be that you traveled back in time and ended up in that part of the multi universe where you traveled back in time.

Also there is the problem that no one has ever met someone that had information that would prove that they traveled back in time.

Just a little stupid thought I had, just to see if anyone has any thoughts on it.

I actually think that Space-Time is a misnomer. Times is really just the measurement of event that happen in space. If nothing, absolutely nothing happens in space, then does time even exist. Time is always expressed in relation to an event. How many heartbeats, how many sunrises, etc.
 
Last edited:
  • #30
ModusPwnd said:
Is there a difference between physically impossible and just impossible? I don't understand what "physically" has to do with it... ?

Time travel is theoritically kind of possible , I am not expert but here are the possible ways to time travel,

1.Move very close to the speed of light , when you stop you reach your future(as time for you , let us say 5 hours where as outside time passed much faster (depending on how close to the speed of light).
2.Move fast around a very dense object , like black hole or a very heavy planet. Again when you come back to Earth it will be your future on earth.
3.All around us small worm holes , so small it we don't see it, if we are able to stabalise them then we can do the time travel for real.

All these are beyond our current technological possibilities.


------------
now the paradox,
You switch on your time machine > assemble a gun>go in time before you assemble the gun>and shoot yourself.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
5K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
Replies
16
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
  • · Replies 47 ·
2
Replies
47
Views
7K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
15
Views
4K