![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
themostepotenteI've been thinking a lot about the time turner and am wondering if there is a similar device that allows travel into the future? Of course there is the argument that since the future hasn't occured yet, how can one travel ahead? But this is fiction, so I suppose we're allowed some leeway?
I've always loved the idea of time travel. The past, the future, matters not. Just the idea of being able to travel backwards or forwards in time is fascinating to me. I'd be very interested to see a brief glimpse into the future, however, and how the characters develop. I have conjured this image in my mind of a post-apocalyptic setting after the War where things aren't so easily put right by magic.
I'm thinking there has to be some correlation between magic and quantum physics, although I'm fairly certain that Rowling didn't go and research Hawking. But at least she had the sense to consider paradoxes, and well, the same matter can never occupy the same space.
Basic theory is that space-time is a four-dimensional construct. A four-dimensional 'worm', whose ends represent the events of your birth and death, is what your life forms in space-time. An object, seen any instant, is a three-dimensional cross section of this worm. The line along which the object lies (ignoring its thickness) is that object's worldline. At any point, the angle your worldline makes with the time axis is a measure of your speed.
Relativity requires that worldlines be timelike. Massive objects distort space-time and bend worldlines. Suppose space-time becomes so distorted so that some worldlines form closed loops. These worldlines would be timelike all around. Locally, they would have all the properties of space and time, but yet they would be corridors of the past. This construct is called a closed timelike curve (CTC). By following a CTC, theoretically we could meet ourselves in the past, or if the loop were large enough, visit our ancestors. How this would allow time travel into the future is frankly, beyond my feeble comprehension :P
I think the time turner was a wonderful plot device though, and one has to wonder now that Harry knows of its existence, how often he considers getting his hands on one. It's really opened up the door for writers to explore an AU with characters that Rowling has killed off without the time period constrictions. So much to explore here, and the possibilities are limitless, really.
So that brings me here. What are everyone's thoughts on time travel and time turners?
Do you have any time travel fics to rec?
--P
I've always loved the idea of time travel. The past, the future, matters not. Just the idea of being able to travel backwards or forwards in time is fascinating to me. I'd be very interested to see a brief glimpse into the future, however, and how the characters develop. I have conjured this image in my mind of a post-apocalyptic setting after the War where things aren't so easily put right by magic.
I'm thinking there has to be some correlation between magic and quantum physics, although I'm fairly certain that Rowling didn't go and research Hawking. But at least she had the sense to consider paradoxes, and well, the same matter can never occupy the same space.
Basic theory is that space-time is a four-dimensional construct. A four-dimensional 'worm', whose ends represent the events of your birth and death, is what your life forms in space-time. An object, seen any instant, is a three-dimensional cross section of this worm. The line along which the object lies (ignoring its thickness) is that object's worldline. At any point, the angle your worldline makes with the time axis is a measure of your speed.
Relativity requires that worldlines be timelike. Massive objects distort space-time and bend worldlines. Suppose space-time becomes so distorted so that some worldlines form closed loops. These worldlines would be timelike all around. Locally, they would have all the properties of space and time, but yet they would be corridors of the past. This construct is called a closed timelike curve (CTC). By following a CTC, theoretically we could meet ourselves in the past, or if the loop were large enough, visit our ancestors. How this would allow time travel into the future is frankly, beyond my feeble comprehension :P
I think the time turner was a wonderful plot device though, and one has to wonder now that Harry knows of its existence, how often he considers getting his hands on one. It's really opened up the door for writers to explore an AU with characters that Rowling has killed off without the time period constrictions. So much to explore here, and the possibilities are limitless, really.
So that brings me here. What are everyone's thoughts on time travel and time turners?
Do you have any time travel fics to rec?
--P
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2005-03-23 12:42 am (UTC)That's only if you subscribe to the many-worlds theory being the only way with which to accomplish time travel (which I do, but for the sake of argument, let's say I don't).
One could subscribe to Gödel's CTCs as being a possible if not plausible method of time travel -- punch holes in the Universe and space-time travel becomes possible; apply Visser's words on Roman rings (a configuration of n black holes in a polygonal formation acting as a time machine and ignore his caveats about it not being a flaw in classical quantum gravity theory) and Bob's your uncle. In the same universe, no less.
Granted, such a solution is practically impossible and ignores Occam's Razor wrt. the many-worlds theory, but this is magic we're talking about. ;) And to stave off paradoxes, one could also throw in Novikov's self-consistency principle, which along with Thorne's calculations seem to indicate that large masses passing through wormholes for purposes of time travel could never produce paradoxes (i.e. once time travel is brought into the picture, conditions generating paradoxes could not be introduced).
Anyway. Gödel and multiverses aside, I take Hawking's expansion of the Fermi paradox, i.e. that we haven't had chrononauts from the future visiting us is the strongest proof that time travel is impossible, at least in large numbers. And I better stop before I babble all day...
(Disclaimer: IANAP; astrophysics, not quantum mechanics, is my darling.)
no subject
Date: 2005-03-23 01:19 am (UTC)Yes, I suppose it depends on which theory you subscribe to. I would have to make a disclamer myself, as I am into quantum mechanics and have never had serious interest in astrophysics. This is partly the reason that I have trouble getting through the Hawking books, though it is all connected. That and I suppose my personal opinion that the uniqueness theory rules and we are indeed alone in the universe(s).
could babble all day about it myself ;-)
no subject
Date: 2005-03-23 01:39 am (UTC)As for the Hawking books, at least A Brief History is getting to the point where it has more value as a document of scientific history, rather than as an accurate portrayal of how today's cosmological theories understand the structure of the universe. Well, re WMAP data and ever-expanding vs. expanding-contracting universe models, at least. I haven't read any of the new printings of the book, though.
Being a mathematician (well, applied math), I'm far more interested in Gödel's incompleteness theorem than in his yammerings about the structure of the universe. And I do subscribe to the many-worlds theory as being the most viable way of enabling time travel, but who knows -- maybe magic works in Gödelian ways. It seems to be fine disregarding the First Law of Thermodynamics, too. ;)
Second section
Date: 2005-03-23 01:09 pm (UTC)You know, while QM is one of my passions, I am by no means an expert and although I am a number cruncher (finance), I am no mathematician either. I understand the theory, but am not particularly adept at doing the higher calculations.
I have A Brief History and Black Holes and baby Universes and other Essays. I have promised myself to try and read at least one during the Easter holiday. Everyone raves about Hawking, I don't know why it is I have trouble reading his work.
In my head I seem to have the need to justify the magical world in terms of what I consider to be realistic. That sounds crazy, I guess, but I don't think it's much different than my need for fanfiction to be realistic as far as the characters are concerned. For example, If Severus starts calling Harry luv and Harry calls Severus Sev I'm outta there. So when people write fanfic where a time turner is used in a way that is completely inconsistant with the principles of QM -- someone goes into the past and kills Voldemort, or worse yet becomes Voldemort, in order to change the future, I roll my eyes and move on to the next fic.
Actually, I really think use of a time turner should be part of the warnings right up there with BDSM, Chan and non-con. Then I could decide right away if I wanted to take the chance of reading a good story, only to have it ruined two thirds of the way in when the author introduces a time turner. There are some writers out there that could do a really great job with this topic, but I'd rather not be surprised. Yes, I'm kind of kidding here, but...well, one can dream ;-)
maybe magic works in Goedelian ways. It seems to be fine disregarding the First Law of Thermodynamics, too
Gödel's IT is applicable to almost everything...though I think I draw the line at the implication that his theory shows that you will never entirely understand yourself, since the mind, as a closed system, can only be sure of what it knows about itself by relying on what it knows about itself. I am curious, though, why you think that Magic disregards the First Law of Thermodynamics. I see no reason why a magical world would violate that law.
Re: Second section
Date: 2005-03-23 04:30 pm (UTC)Stephen Hawking is a lot like Tolkien in the same respects. It took me MONTHS to read through the Silmarillion. Some people just find the 'voice' too, oh what's the word I'm looking for? Dry? Stilted? I'm at a loss, really.
A Brief History of Time is definitely worth your efforts, though.
Re: Second section
Date: 2005-03-23 09:52 pm (UTC)Yes! That's it, stilted. I read large quantities of theoretical physics material as well as technical medical journals so I was puzzled why Hawking was such a challenge for me - now I realise that yes, it's his 'voice' that I can't get comfortable with.
Due to the time difference, I am, once again, reading your mail during morning work hours. Since I have to get back to doing the thinking that brings home the bacon, I'll mail you later with some other thoughts; I had several of them with regard to the magical world and physics while I was 'talking' to
Re: Second section
Date: 2005-03-25 04:46 pm (UTC)okay, work over, I'm back :-)
Date: 2005-03-23 12:30 pm (UTC)The laws of quantum mechanics impose extreme restrictions on which pathways in the multiverse can be connected. The pathways being what is traveled, and not time, although the pathway may be either future or past directed.
It can be argued that Einstein's equations predict that past directed travel would be possible in the vicinity of massive, spinning objects and black holes definitely qualify. Although no satisfactory quantum theory of gravity exists, Deutsch points out that typical candidate versions of such a theory not only allow past-directed connections to exist in the multiverse, they predict that such connections are continually forming and breaking spontaneously. According to him, the typical pathway formed by such effects is about 10 to the -35 metres across, remains open for one Planck time and so only reaches on Planck time into the past.
Future-directed travel a less complicated in terms of actualization technically, but since I've blabbered on and on I'll spare you the details, as I'm sure, with you being into Astrophysics, you already know. :-)
Gödel's theories don't have any negative effect on the multiverse POV (well at least as far as I can see) and his Incompleteness theorem in particular is as brilliant as it is obvious. Because of it we know that there will never be a fixed method of determining whether a mathematical proposition is true. It proves that progress in mathematics will always rely on creativity (this is very important in relation to the knowledge paradox that quantum theory rules out).
So all that babbled, how does that all relate to magic?
*moves down to your next comment*
Re: okay, work over, I'm back :-)
Date: 2005-03-30 05:10 am (UTC)Actually, quantum mechanics, with its parallel universes and the quantum concept of time, does not rule out, in theory, the use of black holes to achieve travel along multiverse pathways. What it does rule out, is any kind of paradox (time, grandfather, or knowledge).
True indeed, and I was not contesting the possibility of time travel in multiverses vs. Gödelian universes -- only that it's possible to have time travel methods that could introduce paradoxes, i.e. methods that do not rely on the many-world paradigm to accomplish time travel.
This, of course, doesn't answer the question of whether time travel is possible or not in terms of practicalities (and considering it involves the rearrangement of black holes in possibly unsuccessful attempts at making the connection stable, I'd say it's mighty hard); it's a question of theoretical possibility. Nor does it take any stance on the plausibility of either the multiverse or Gödelian universe theories. Me, I do believe in the many-worlds idea, but AFAIK it's still a mere conjecture, not a theorem; hence, any propositions using it should be prefaced with an "assuming the multiverse theory is true, [...]" disclaimer.
Does that make any sense? I mean, my original contention was that you said "Paradoxes do NOT exist. Period.", yet that's only true if one assumes the multiverse theory is a) true, b) the only method of time travel available. Or am I completely off the mark here?
As for my issues with magic contradicting Laws of Thermodynamics, that's more tongue-in-cheek than anything else. :) But yeah... flying brooms with no obvious source of energy? First Law says "boink!" Reparo and memories in the Pensieve? Second Law says "fuhgeddaboutit!"
no subject
Date: 2005-03-23 04:15 pm (UTC)How do we know we haven't though? Look at Roswell -- perfect example. We are so being misled there. And why? The mass hysteria alone...
Goddess, I love conspiracy theories.
Oh, and babble on, dear. *G* I always love reading your posts.
no subject
Date: 2005-03-30 05:17 am (UTC)Mwah! :) I have deep love for X-Files and conspiracy theories, but I do think my love for Occam's Razor does trump these tendencies on most occasions... as it happens, the question of extra-terrestrial life is what the Fermi paradox (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi_paradox) attempts to answer.
Me, to believe in either chrononauts and little green men, I do need more data. I mean, I don't need to witness them myself, but I do need information and evidence... I don't need to go into space to believe it's black, because the physics of it make sense and there have been many independent verifiers and photographers who've said that yes, it is indeed black. Same with aliens. And time travellers.
(This doesn't detract from the fun of conspiracy theories, however. They make great brain fodder. ;)