Talk:Time travel

replacement for wretched wording and markup

   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}}

--Jerzy•t 04:21 & 07:05, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

We are all time travellers really!

Hi, I think we are all time travellers. We are all from the 'past' right? as soon as you think, the time has passed. We are also moving forward in time, no one stop! The only thing is, some people may travel a little faster than others such as the people work on the airplane or outer space.

I have now a question if anyone can answer me. Please email me on [email protected]: I am not a physicist, if I swing my arm with speed which is attached to my body, should my arm be present in a different time as my body does? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sendittomequick (talk • contribs) 21:17, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

I can't talk to your time travel question, but you should be able to just get messages through Wikipedia. It's usually a bad idea to put your email on Wikipedia, but it is not (to the best of my knowledge) against the rules. Nonetheless, I would suggest removing it from your comment.

Second, this space is really to talk about the article Time Travel, not to ask subject matter questions. You would probably be better off finding another forum to ask your question if you really need a response.

Finally, my apologies for deleting this comment originally - I made an error and thought it was the main article (where it would be inappropriate).

--KNHaw ^(talk) 21:25, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

This is discussed in the article, in the lead, "Forward time travel, outside the usual sense of the perception of time, is an extensively-observed phenomenon and well-understood within the framework of special relativity and general relativity", and more in-depth in the appropriate sections. Bright☀ 10:24, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

What people are calling "forward time travel" is really no such thing. If I get on a spaceship and travel near light speed for a century, I will return to the earth hardly aged at all but everyone on earth will be 100 years gone or older... did I travel forward in time? no. I did not cease to exist in the present moment at any point in my journey... but I was not changing at the normal rate of earthbound changes is all. it may SEEM like I traveled to the future but I just aged slower, not that different from traveling in cryogenic suspension.Jiohdi (talk) 01:55, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Off-topic here per wp:Talk page guidelines: "Talk pages are for improving the encyclopedia, not for expressing personal opinions on a subject or an editor." - DVdm (talk) 08:55, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Jiohdi correction of forward time travel does improve the article. It improves it by correcting it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.0.216.102 (talk) 21:53, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Not feasible with current technology

Regarding this edit, the issue is not whether Hawking is generally reliable, but whether the source is reliable for the particular statement it's supporting. I don't agree that it is, because it doesn't appear to support the statement (or perhaps it just needs clarification?), and because it presents one perspective as absolute fact (compare for example this source). Nikkimaria (talk) 16:08, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

I think the article is indeed a bit too hazy on details to be used. Bright☀ 12:29, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 December 2018

At the end the first paragraph of "Absence time travelers from the future" where it talks about "a region of spacetime that is warped...", add this sentence: "Kurt Vonnegut explored this idea in his novel "The End of Eternity." 2601:1C0:8100:B4E3:F51E:5AA:C039:5EAF (talk) 20:13, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm sure that most of the concepts in this article have been addressed in science fiction at one time or another. Sci-fi is covered briefly in this article but in far more detail at Time travel in fiction. Is there a reason this story is the exception that is noteworthy for a mention here? ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 21:24, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I think it's better to put it there. That article was specially created for the purpose. - DVdm (talk) 22:02, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Kurt Vonnegut was not the author of "The End of Eternity". Issac Asimov is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.0.216.102 (talk) 21:48, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 April 2019

Add 'time travel theories' Theory 1: If one is to travel back in time, it is impossible for their actions to affect the future in any way, as the future/present is already set. This means that their actions have no consequences in the past. They could go back in time to kill their grandparent, but they are prevented from doing so in some way.

Theory 2: If one is to travel back in time, their actions create an alternate timeline, where the events can be drastically different, or have unnoticeable details changed(for example, an alternate timeline could be created by flicking a switch on, or more noticeably, murdering someone).

Theory 3: Similar to theory 1, the present is set and unchangeable, so your past self can be killed and you would remain alive, as you are the one in the present.

Theory 4: The actions of one who has travelled to the past create a new reality, the one everyone experiences in the present. Only the people who travelled back in time to change the future would know of the old past. Everyone else would have different memories of a changed past. This theory is similar to the movie X-Men: Days of Future Past. Roganliv (talk) 02:32, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

• Please present specific edits with reference to reliable sources; please don't place forum posts here with some chatter about a movie. Drmies (talk) 02:33, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Not sure if "time travel" is possible but time machine(s) do exist apparently

Those who have them want me to think that particle accelerators are actually time machines. There is even a documentary called "The World's First Time Machine" (https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0867212/) which suggests that they are only able to receive messages from the future using their time machines. I posted about it on the reddit "conspiracy" sub (https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy) and now believe that everyone but me already know about the existence of time machine(s). Might want to update the article with information about real life time machine(s) or mention something like "if they exist, they are classified...". Otherwise even articles labeled "good" like this one - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_biosphere - shouldn't be believed. By the way, I noticed that the article about particle accelerators is not labeled "good" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Particle_accelerator). ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.57.84.115 (talk) 05:52, 21 March 2020 (UTC)