[clueless (OP)]

Even though I am rather ignorant and most probably an anathema in the eyes of naked scientists, I still dared to start this topic, being more than aware I’ll not receive a Nobel Prize.

If time travel is possible, it can occur many times, that is, it is possible to radically change events and so induce many possible futures. These possible futures, I suppose they are parallel universes since a particular universe is being duplicated each time a time travel occurs and changes are radical. So because of time, in that, because of traveling to the past, space as we know it can multiply infinitely, which suggests that our universe is deeply connected with other universes, in fact, time allows creation of other universes w/o the necessity of Big Bang rather through time incursions. So time itself allows creation or destruction of planets, stars, black holes and even new universes, which suggests that time has multidimensional properties which are dependent on one small object like e.g. time machine. Since this small object creates multiverses simply by traveling through time, this means that at all times, time is aware of every object in the universe, as if though time itself is Universal Mind and Cronos is possibly the most powerful entity or God himself. So time remembers all its past and the present within its memory of infinite capacity, and if traveling through time is possible, it means that past is actually right here, that is, the past is made out of parallel universes which we cannot detect with our senses or technology. Every passed microsecond is actually an alternate universe which exists in the past and will not be deleted or forgotten by time which forgets nothing like Unforgiven.

Though temporal paradox haunts me like poltergeist, does anything of what I just said sound at all coherent or interesting to you? If so, perhaps I am not boring. Or am I?

[chris]

Can you please format your thread title as a question, in line with the forum policy. Thanks.

[clueless (OP)]

Instead of the Nobel Prize I get critique regarding my insufficient title. Thanks a lot. I appreciate it. Only kidding.

[PmbPhy]

Even though I am rather ignorant and most probably an anathema in the eyes of naked scientists, I still dared to start this topic, being more than aware I’ll not receive a Nobel Prize.

If time travel is possible, it can occur many times, that is, it is possible to radically change events and so induce many possible futures. These possible futures, I suppose they are parallel universes since a particular universe is being duplicated each time a time travel occurs and changes are radical.

There's no physical basis for asserting that traveling back in time will create another universe. If that were true there would have to be a mechanism for it to be created. Suppose a particle was sent back in time. Then you're asserting that act spawns a new universe. I can't see how the universe would "know" that a particle traveled back in time.

That time travel seems to imply a different future than the one that already occurred is one of the reasons physicists don't believe its possible to travel back in time. However the question is still open because physicists have realized a way to do it but it requires the use of two cosmic strings passing each other and that's not something one can control and nobody has ever detected a cosmic string yet.

[geordief]

However the question is still open because physicists have realized a way to do it but it requires the use of two cosmic strings passing each other and that's not something one can control and nobody has ever detected a cosmic string yet.

Might you provide a link or a reference to that  idea?

If this phenomenon was possible could it happen that a situation might endlessly repeat itself if the two locations were close enough?

Little eddies of swirling (well circling) spacetime isolated from the rest of the universe.......

Something on the nano scale I  would "imagine"

[evan_au]

Suppose a particle was sent back in time.

A lot of simple interactions in particle physics work just as well with time flowing forwards or backwards.

Due to symmetries in the laws of physics, I heard that you can view the path of a positron as the path of an electron traveling backwards in time(?)

This doesn't need a time machine, and I doubt it creates a new universe.

That time travel seems to imply a different future than the one that already occurred is one of the reasons physicists don't believe its possible to travel back in time.

The positron/reversed-time electron doesn't create a future any different from the one that was going to exist anyway.

[guest4091]

After a particle transitions through states ABC, it transitions through states CBA.
Did it move backward in time, or did it just transition in reverse order?

A positron may be interpreted as an electron moving backward in time.

While both cases were being observed, the clock was accumulating forward!

When a car is backing up, the odometer does not unwind.
 
The misinterpretation of time as something tangible leads to the speculative ideas of time travel. It makes for good science fiction.
The nature of time is an accumulation of beats. Formally the time is 3:00, 9-20-2016.
 

[geordief]

The nature of time is an accumulation of beats. Formally the time is 3:00, 9-20-2016.
 

The "nature of time"? You know this?

All we know (if we do)  is what time does.

We don't know what "time is" let alone its nature.

"time" is a word that was invented to cover  and describe events  and phenomena. I would hazard it might have as many meanings as the events and phenomena it applies to .

If we can classify these events and phenomena to a very small number of types then perhaps we will have an opportunity of  getting a closer look at what is going on.

[clueless (OP)]

We don't know what "time is" let alone its nature.

So maybe time is Cronus after all. Somebody hand me the Nobel Prize for temporal paradox. Unless you're right about time being a figment of our imagination. In that case, I will give up this great prize and acknowledgment and generously offer it to you, unless you don't want medals like Nicholson, rather respect and courtesy. Still, it is impossible to bypass Freeman as well. So go home, naked scientists, and be decent. And put some clothes on.       

[guest4091]

The nature of time is an accumulation of beats. Formally the time is 3:00, 9-20-2016.
 

The "nature of time"? You know this?

All we know (if we do)  is what time does.

We don't know what "time is" let alone its nature.

"time" is a word that was invented to cover  and describe events  and phenomena. I would hazard it might have as many meanings as the events and phenomena it applies to .

If we can classify these events and phenomena to a very small number of types then perhaps we will have an opportunity of  getting a closer look at what is going on.

You can understand 'time' if you read its history, and examine how and why it's used, in all its applications. It's a diary, a ships log, historical records, etc.
It is a correspondence convention, i.e., assigning events of interest to standard clock events, a measure and ordering of activity. A clock is just a metronome with a built-in counter.

Contrary to the popular expression, "it's a function of time", as if time is a causative factor, the time of an event is assigned after the event happens. Time does nothing.
Eg. an object accelerates 32 fps/s. The motion is caused by gravity, not time.

There is the psychological factor of people associating continuing life with continuing time, i.e. they don't want 'time' reduced to an abstraction, vs. an objective.(unknown) something.

Trying to fit subjective time into an objective hole, is probably why there is no consensus after a few thousand years of debate.

[CPT ArkAngel]

It is impossible to go backward in time while you go forward because it would result in paradoxes which are impossible to resolve. Though it is good for science fiction.

In my opinion there is no subjective time. The notion of subjective time arises from our lack of knowledge of how it works and from the fact that our memory is a faculty that forgets...

The fact that some people and animals may experience time at different rates is caused by the different speed of data treatment, not a different basic time. Though it might be really different in the context of Einstein's Relativity (relative speed and gravitational potential), it is not subjective.

[Jonnytombstone]

"The fact that some people and animals may experience time at different rates is caused by the different speed of data treatment, not a different basic time. Though it might be really different in the context of Einstein's Relativity (relative speed and gravitational potential), it is not subjective."

I fall in line with Einstein's theory of relativity. Time is not absolute. It is relative to the person who is observing. this makes it impossible to time travel in the context you are thinking about.

I personally don't think its possible to go back on our timeline.

This may become non-coherent but I am going to try my best to explain A situation where "time-travel" works. This is all based on the possibility of a Multiverse. I will use Schrodinger's Cat as the example.

You are on one universe timeline that has an upcoming split. The first timeline takes you to a universe where you do not open the case and just walk away. The second takes you to a universe where you open the case and the cat is dead. The third timeline takes you to universe where you open the case and the cat is alive.


There is also a universe timeline where this split doesn't happen for a few years later from your perspective on timeline 1. This universe it close to the first universe.

Now theoretically if you have the means to travel to different timelines you could move over to the second Main timeline and choose a different path. It would seem like you were traveling back in time but in reality you are just jumping to different universes with different timelines

[PmbPhy]

Might you provide a link or a reference to that  idea?

I'm so sorry that I didn't see your request until just now. I haven't read this page but it appears to discuss the subject.
http://www.astro.princeton.edu/~anatoly/ast203/Lectures/Lecture_20.html

It was written by Richard Gott who's well known in the physics community for working on time travel. I'll keep looking. I know that there's a paper out there about this somewhere. I really should find it to help others who raise the subject.