The Split-Timeline theory argues that, for every possibility, there is a universe in which that possibility occurred. Thus, there are infinite universes/timelines in which things may have occurred slightly or completely different than our own. I believe this is false because, in order for there to be an infinite amount of timelines, there would have to be an infinite amount of matter and energy either inside or outside each and every universe/timeline. The laws of conversation say that new matter and energy can not be created, only transferred. Thoughts?

What i think, is that we are all travelling along the 4d plane of the universe, with inersia from the big bang pulling use through time. (so time is just like a spacial dimention.)

From,
Nice coder

Thats part of quantum theory and it seems as though you have only studied it a bit within whatever michael cricton book you just finished reading (probably timeline.) The splitting-timeline theory as you called it was the very first thing that Bohr and Einstein explained through a little theory with disturbing consequences called 'entanglement', where two charges of energy or matter become entangled. Now one part of this says that within one universe they will interact over large distances without any contact. The other part is that they exist even when seperated by these worlds. Therefore one atom in one world equals one atom in every world, even though they might not be doing even close to the same thing in any two worlds. Another point to consider is that the rules of physics does not always hold true at the atomic level, modern physics cannot accuratly explain all phenomenon, we do not know enough about how matter reacts at such a small level because it is indead interacting with the matter from other worlds or layers. There is a simple light test that proves this and it cannot be explained any other way. Anyways, that about the just of it, I left out all the complicated stuff because its too boring and technical. However the best thing is to read the book 'entanglement', it explains alot of this stuff clearly. Also, if the big bang enertia was still pulling at us it would probably suck all matter into a vacuume at the rate it is moving, because the big bang is still creating the universe, in fact almost 1% of the static on radio or television is a result of cosmic radiation that is in turn the result of the still expanding universe.

Actually, I haven't read ANY Michael Criton (sp?) books, nor did I see that movie. I just think too much, ya know?

I don't understand how one atom can perform multiple tasks at once. They're too small. They have a single purpose.

As a matter of fact (lol, talking about matter... *snigger*) an atom is simply a group of smaller elements, each with its own life and physics, which happen to be revolving around each others because of different electrical and magnetic forces, but mainly, an atom is empty. The reason "why" an atom seems solid is because every part of it happens to be moving so fast that they actually leave no space empty for long enough for anything or close to go through.

If you check this, you will find that the atoms are made of Neutrons, Electrons and Positrons, and that those are made of smaller entities such as quarks and gluons, and muons and tiny tiny bits of matter that are barely seen but much more in the field of pratical ideas to explain why some things happen the way they do.

Let's take the example of a quark. It is the basic element of the quantum theory, was not visualised until very recently, and was sought because it was first modelised to explain some things. This very quark, as the basic element for the quantic computer as well, can have up to thirty-two different electrical states. It is not only 0 or 1, but also thirty other variables, that seem to explain a lot to those who seek knowledge about "why anything at all?". In fact, some experiences with these quarks and some electrons and other particles have given hope that transmission of matter is at hand, because some scientists have been able to disintegrate those in a place, and make them "happen" in a different place instantly, some five kilometers away. Don't go saying "Enterprise, two up." right now, we are talking about things smaller than atoms, with simple enough data to be transfered this way.

As for the timelines and parallel dimensions, they were in fact invented by Einstein and his coworkers, because they were a clever way of explaining why Timetravel was impractical (You could travel DOWN the timeline easily enough, but could never find your way back up the tree, and you cannot climb further up that tree because you already are on top) but that was more than fifty years ago, and some clever people have made some more assessments about physics. Who knows? Some day, someone may come up with an incredible theory about everything, may be believed or not, and timetravel may become affordable. Or not. But until that moment, you are stuck with your einsteinian theory of quantum, and have to leave it at that, unless you feel an irreepressible need to model the un iverse according to different laws. If so, please let me out of it...

Yours faithfully,
Nicolas FOURNIALS

As a matter of fact (lol, talking about matter... *snigger*) an atom is simply a group of smaller elements, each with its own life and physics, which happen to be revolving around each others because of different electrical and magnetic forces, but mainly, an atom is empty. The reason "why" an atom seems solid is because every part of it happens to be moving so fast that they actually leave no space empty for long enough for anything or close to go through.

If you check this, you will find that the atoms are made of Neutrons, Electrons and Positrons, and that those are made of smaller entities such as quarks and gluons, and muons and tiny tiny bits of matter that are barely seen but much more in the field of pratical ideas to explain why some things happen the way they do.

Let's take the example of a quark. It is the basic element of the quantum theory, was not visualised until very recently, and was sought because it was first modelised to explain some things. This very quark, as the basic element for the quantic computer as well, can have up to thirty-two different electrical states. It is not only 0 or 1, but also thirty other variables, that seem to explain a lot to those who seek knowledge about "why anything at all?". In fact, some experiences with these quarks and some electrons and other particles have given hope that transmission of matter is at hand, because some scientists have been able to disintegrate those in a place, and make them "happen" in a different place instantly, some five kilometers away. Don't go saying "Enterprise, two up." right now, we are talking about things smaller than atoms, with simple enough data to be transfered this way.

As for the timelines and parallel dimensions, they were in fact invented by Einstein and his coworkers, because they were a clever way of explaining why Timetravel was impractical (You could travel DOWN the timeline easily enough, but could never find your way back up the tree, and you cannot climb further up that tree because you already are on top) but that was more than fifty years ago, and some clever people have made some more assessments about physics. Who knows? Some day, someone may come up with an incredible theory about everything, may be believed or not, and timetravel may become affordable. Or not. But until that moment, you are stuck with your einsteinian theory of quantum, and have to leave it at that, unless you feel an irreepressible need to model the un iverse according to different laws. If so, please let me out of it...

Yours faithfully,
Nicolas FOURNIALS

Here's one reason to support the many-worlds theory.

The classic time-travel paradox is that you can't go back in time and shoot your own grandfather: if you could do that, your father wouldn't be born, you wouldn't be born, ergo you can't shoot your grandfather.

But--if every possible timeline exists, you can travel to a timeline in which you kill your grandfather, a timeline in which you will not exist *in the future of that timeline.* In your own timeline, though, your grandfather is still alive.

As often happens, this paradox is a result of not being able to see the whole picture. If there is more than one past, there is no paradox, because there is more than one future.

All of which begs the possibility of time travel, because that's a separate issue. If it's not possible, the question is moot. If it turns out to be a translation from one timeline to another, rather than from one point to another on the same timeline, it's not really *time* travel, so again the question is moot.

There's basically only two possible ways time-travel could work, assuming time travel is possible.

One is the many-worlds/split timeline theory discussed here. It doesn't have to be infinite number of universes for it to work, just that a new version of the universe springs into existence when the time-travellers arrive at the time. From that moment everything in that version is different from the original. Everything before the arrival-time is unchanged.

The other is one has just one timeline, but to avoid paradoxes free choice is just an illusion and everything is preordained.

If you travel back in time to kill your grandfather, you'll find that something prevents you from doing it. Ie. you're fated to fail. If you managed to kill him and thus removing yourself from existence then you can't go back and kill him, so he'll live and you'll be born etc. Brings Z-fighting to a whole new level :).

In this theory everything has "already happened" and can't be changed. Our lives are just playback on the great VCR that is the Universe. Instead of killing your grandfather, say you travel back to discover the cause of a great disaster - when you get there you might accidentally be the cause of that disaster. Before you left the disaster had already happened, but you didn't know you were the cause until you got there, so you had no way of knowing that you shouldn't go.

so;

many-worlds: free choice, meeting yourself or killing your grandfather possible.

Playing a computer game with save games in any form is akin to this theory. Loading a savegame can be compared in traveling back in time (only in "your own body" - see "Butterfly Effect"). The difference is that you can't travel forward in time, but that would be possible in real life (Stasis, cryogenic, time-machine, near-light speed travel).

Example in movies : SPOILERS - highlight text to see.

Basically every movie where someone travels back in time to change something, and actually succeeds. Also those that have prophecy that isn't fulfilled.

"The Simpsons" In one (halloween?) episode Homer travels back in time using a jerry rigged toaster. When he returns to the present something has changed. He keeps trying until he can find a present he likes.

"TimeCop" - A lot of changes in the past that needs fixing. Badguy killed by throwing older evil self into younger version. It used elements from single-timeline though which made it more unrealistic than the concept itself is; the younger version of the badguy got a scratch on the cheek and the scar suddenly appeared on the cheek of the older version.

"Butterfly Effect" - Using his journal, the main character travels back in time to a younger version of himself to change what happened. The changes also has a lot of side effects not noticable until he returns to the present.

"Stargate SG-1" season 8, eps 19-20 - "Moebius" - To recover a ZPM the team travels back in time, but things goes wrong and they leave a video tape with info on what to do. In the present in that timeline the stargate has not been found, but they find a way to travel back in time to fix it, but gets stuck there as well. The present in the third timeline is basically the same as in the first, but they've found the videotape and the ZPM, and since they've got the ZPM they decide not to return to the past at all.

"Paycheck" - Not time travel per se, but since he can see the future he knows what he has to do. Since he was able to change the future, what he saw had to be another "universe"

"Minority Report" - also not time-travel, but the prophets sees the likely future, but that's stopped by the "thought-police".



single timeline: Fate rules absolute, meeting yourself is theoretically possible, but in that case you had already met yourself before you left, killing your grandfather is impossible.

Watching a movie is akin to this - nothing can be changed, but you can rewind and fast forward :)

Example in movies : SPOILERS - highlight text to see.
Basically every movie that contains true prophecy (unchangable) or time travel where the traveller himself is the cause of some mystery, or where history remains unchanged from in the beginning of the movie.

"Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure" - They meet themselves and to prove they're the same the oldest versions asks the younger versions to think of a number and then tells it correctly. They also get a key needed "now" by later travelling a few days back in time to hide it where they knew to look. The key had gone missing about a day before the movie started. One have to assume that the passangers decided not to tell anyone that they'd been to the future, and that the Babes had already disappeared from history before the movie started

"Back to the Future" is also more or less this theory. I say more or less because he almost destroyed himself by having his mother almost fall in love with him. I can't remember, but she might very well have named her son after him, and thus he's named after himself [smile].

"Timeline" (Probably) - I could see nothing that had changed when they returned, but I may be wrong (they found a tomb containing one of their party after they returned, but it seemed as if had been there before they left, but not found). Also a mural was destroyed in the "future", and they were the ones who destroyed it.

Quote: Original post by orionx103
this is false because, in order for there to be an infinite amount of timelines, there would have to be an infinite amount of matter and energy either inside or outside each and every universe/timeline.

Why? There can be an infinite amount of universes with a limited amount of energy/matter each. The sum of the universes will give you infinite amount of energy/matter but you cannot sum their energies because they're issolated from each other and do not interact.