My Theory About Time Travel

So, if any of you have thought about time travel longer than five minutes, you may have come across some paradoxes. For example, there is one that shows up in the episode of Doctor Who where the Doctor goes to meet Vincent van Gogh. He ends up disobeying the "laws of time travel", and takes van Gogh to see some of the work he's done in a museum so that van Gogh can realize that people really enjoy his work.

One paradox that shows up is: If Vincent van Gogh looked at some of the artwork he painted, but he looked at it before he painted it in his own little timeline, and painted the work based on what he saw, who really created it?

My theory is that there is one giant, all incorporating linear timeline that even time travelers cannot jump around in. It's kind of hard to explain, so please bare with me while I try to. Let's take the van Gogh example:

First, Vincent van Gogh lives his life without ever seeing the Doctor. Then, later in the giant linear timeline, the Doctor exists and decides to go visit van Gogh, and, still going forward in the timeline, the Doctor "goes back in time" to visit Vincent van Gogh. So originally, van Gogh created the artwork by himself, and then later the Doctor visited a "different van Gogh", wherein he learned from the "original van Gogh" and based his paintings on the original's work.

What do you all think?

Idunno, but if I could time travel, I'd totally visit Jesus, brofist him and tell him what his future followers will be like.

I'd also tell Beethoven, "calm your tits, bro".

And perhaps punch Stalin in the face several times, because go back to Georgia.

And if we're talking about going backs, "woman, go back to the kitchen" to Thatcher.



Time travel is so much fun.

Sounds like split timelines here. It's easy to grasp. One line has Van Gogh originally coming up with an idea, while the other branch has him get inspiration from his "future self". However, when the inspired Van Gogh proceeds to make his version of the painting, his is most likely going to be at least the slightest bit different, and history will play out differently than it originally did. It wouldn't work as cleanly as it might have in Doctor Who.

@Super Nes: Yes, time travel IS fun.

Originally Posted by ManofRedHelms

Sounds like split timelines here. It's easy to grasp. One line has Van Gogh originally coming up with an idea, while the other branch has him get inspiration from his "future self". However, when the inspired Van Gogh proceeds to make his version of the painting, his is most likely going to be at least the slightest bit different, and history will play out differently than it originally did. It wouldn't work as cleanly as it might have in Doctor Who.

@Super Nes: Yes, time travel IS fun.

Hmm, perhaps split timelines, but I was thinking more like one giant linear timeline where this stuff actually happens in order according to some linear measurement. The Doctor is actually going forward with his life, so he's not jumping in and out of his own life, right? So his personal timeline is linear. Why can't the entire timeline be linear in some way then?

Originally Posted by Ralphpotato

Hmm, perhaps split timelines, but I was thinking more like one giant linear timeline where this stuff actually happens in order according to some linear measurement. The Doctor is actually going forward with his life, so he's not jumping in and out of his own life, right? So his personal timeline is linear. Why can't the entire timeline be linear in some way then?

The problem I see with that is, say Doctor Who time travels and does manage to create a split timeline. There now exists Universe A, which is the giant timeline, and Universe B, which is a branch timeline.

The history of B continues as per natural, sometimes deviating from that of A. Eventually, in B, someone else decides to time travel and create their own split timeline. However, he wants to go to a point in time between the creation of B, and the present. In this jump, A isn't involved whatsoever.

So, he creates Universe C, which could be connected to universe B, but not at all to A.

If A is the ultimate timeline that is connected to everything, then it would include C, but it simply can't because the existence of C only depends on the existence of B.

In a way, every branch that exists, (A, B, and C) is able to be the "ultimate" timeline, in which things originally occured.

Let's take the timelines A, B, and C, ans attribute them to the Van Gogh example. In A, Van Gogh makes art on his own. In B, he is inspired by himself from the future, and still creates art. However, it turns out that in B, Van Gogh is willing to take a disciple because of his confidence in seeing himself famous. The Disciple then, in timeline B, is able to make art of his own, while in timeline A, this Disciple would either not exist or do someting else with his life.

Now, someone from the future of timeline B travels back in time to meet the Disciple before he made art, and inspires him. This leads the Disciple to boost his confidence, as well as take on another generation of disciples that would now only exist in C.

So, while timeline A includes the original ideas of Van Gogh, it does not have the original ideas of the Disciple. There is no overrarching timeline that can include the originality of both artists, and A, B, and C all carry the same amount of weight.

my theory is that, since time travel paradoxes are called paradoxes precisely because they are things which couldn't possibly happen (they violate causality), time travel isn't possible.

This timeline thing is getting complicated. =O

I don't think paradoxes can happen if you think in split timelines

/zeldanerd

It's fairly simple, too: Everytime someone goes back in time, a split happens.

Maybe, instead of creating split timelines, all timelines have been created already, and are all linear. They just intersect at different times.

Originally Posted by Ralphpotato

So, if any of you have thought about time travel longer than five minutes, you may have come across some paradoxes. For example, there is one that shows up in the episode of Doctor Who where the Doctor goes to meet Vincent van Gogh. He ends up disobeying the "laws of time travel", and takes van Gogh to see some of the work he's done in a museum so that van Gogh can realize that people really enjoy his work.

One paradox that shows up is: If Vincent van Gogh looked at some of the artwork he painted, but he looked at it before he painted it in his own little timeline, and painted the work based on what he saw, who really created it?

My theory is that there is one giant, all incorporating linear timeline that even time travelers cannot jump around in. It's kind of hard to explain, so please bare with me while I try to. Let's take the van Gogh example:

First, Vincent van Gogh lives his life without ever seeing the Doctor. Then, later in the giant linear timeline, the Doctor exists and decides to go visit van Gogh, and, still going forward in the timeline, the Doctor "goes back in time" to visit Vincent van Gogh. So originally, van Gogh created the artwork by himself, and then later the Doctor visited a "different van Gogh", wherein he learned from the "original van Gogh" and based his paintings on the original's work.

What do you all think?

Here's a better example, in 3 words:
Song. Of. Storms.

Who composed it? Link or the freaky guy in the windmill?

Well, the only time travel theory I've ever actually heard explained out is that of Darkoism, hahaha. But yours is quite thought provoking...
I'm not too sure I believe in time travel, but if I did it would probably follow that of Darkoist theory (I'm really surprised that's a real thing...haha).

This whole time travel theory talk reminds me of this video about travelling through time by a minute and shooting yourself.

But the thing is, who actually shot you before you even loaded the pistol in the past?



Things like this gives me a headache to think about, but it sure it very interesting.

Originally Posted by Alyss of Spades

Well, the only time travel theory I've ever actually heard explained out is that of Darkoism, hahaha. But yours is quite thought provoking...
I'm not too sure I believe in time travel, but if I did it would probably follow that of Darkoist theory (I'm really surprised that's a real thing...haha).

What is the Darkoist theory?

Thinking about time travel always makes my brain hurt. x3
However, I have always thought it would be really fun. Not just to visit the people you read about in history books, but just to live in a certain period of time.


Oh, and this is kind of a side note, but has anyone ever read Bearing an Hourglass by Piers Anthony? Time travel is abundant in that novel. In fact, the main character, Norton, lives backwards.
It was a really good, albeit confusing read.

Originally Posted by Eternal Legend

This whole time travel theory talk reminds me of this video about travelling through time by a minute and shooting yourself.

But the thing is, who actually shot you before you even loaded the pistol in the past?



Things like this gives me a headache to think about, but it sure it very interesting.

that video basically said the same thing I said—since time travel paradoxes are a result of a violation of one of the Universe's most basic principles, causality, time travel must be impossible.

Originally Posted by Eternal Legend

This whole time travel theory talk reminds me of this video about travelling through time by a minute and shooting yourself.

But the thing is, who actually shot you before you even loaded the pistol in the past?



Things like this gives me a headache to think about, but it sure it very interesting.

Hmm, that does give me quite the headache.

But what if, perhaps, you aren't shooting yourself? What if you're not really looking at the same person in the past that you were being?

So many theories yet to be discovered, or perhaps never discovered. Crazy.

Originally Posted by Lysis

that video basically said the same thing I said—since time travel paradoxes are a result of a violation of one of the Universe's most basic principles, causality, time travel must be impossible.

This video goes with the idea that there is always one ray of time, and thus is subjected to paradoxes if time travel were to ever happen.

But what if you entertained the idea of an alternate reality being created everytime a "paradox" occurs? In the universe where the scientist is shot, it instantly becomes different than the universe in which the scientist "originated" from our perspective. There is one universe that witnesses a scientist building a wormhole, and then fires into the wormhole, and a second universe in which the scientist builds a wormhole and is hit by a bullet from it.

Even though the scientist never even travelled throught he wormhole himself, a single bullet made all the difference.

I don't know what the relationship would be between radiation and our hypothetical wormhole, though. Could radiation "destroy" a wormhole? And are wormholes the only possible means of time travel?

all of that is speculation without any precedent in reality. You can entertain such ideas all you want but there is nothing to suggest that any of them are true. In fact, some of them don't really make much sense. If "time travel" puts you into another Universe (which is impossible—the Universe consists of all things that exist and is a closed system, you can't leave it and nothing can enter it) then it's not time travel at all, it's just travel between Universes.

FUTURE GUMMY, IF YOU EVER DISCOVER TIME TRAVEL, AGREE TO RETURN TO THIS EXACT SPOT IN 1 MINUTE.

I think some things are better off not knowing. With the ability of time travel, sure you could do tons of great things, but let's face it, people will abuse it. They will change the future by making themselves come out on top. Sure there will be some people who would change the world for good, some would also change it for dreadful reasons. So, that's why I am afraid of time travel.

Future me is a douche.
And, we all know what would happen if time travel was discovered.