If time travel were to exist, which theory would you subscribe to?

You’ve already taken said actions but just didn’t know about it so nothing changes

12 Monkeys did this one perfectly.

You can't change things because if you undid the thing, then there wouldn't be a reason to undo the thing. If you go back in time, you are just going to do what you already did because that is in the past.

I like the one where the motion of the universe is not accounted for, so the travelers drop into empty space. But someone figures out how to use that to travel through space.

Time Wars are fun though. Each prime timeline moving others toward them.

Whichever one is objectively correct based on empirical evidence.

Fun fact: time travel does exist, and I am myself a time traveler. The fact that I'm travelling at one second per second along with everyone else is just a minor detail.

I have always been a fan of stable time loops so I guess option 2 is the best one for me.

One trope I'd like to see more of is loops which are not stable themselves, but are stable as a group. Eg a 2-loop has loop A in which someone goes back in time and changes history leading to a new timeline loop B. Someone in loop B later goes back in time and changes history in a way that turns the timeline back into loop A.

My headcanon is that your option 3 is basically an n-loop that we only see the first few loops of.

If it actually existed, then obviously I would subscribe to whatever theory most accurately described how it worked. That's science.

If you're asking which theory I would predict is most likely, knowing only that time travel was possible as a starting point, then there are only two that I'm aware of that are logically consistent. Either:

• Single fixed timeline, whereby if you go back in time then whatever you do there was already a part of history from the start. You won't be able to "change" anything because you were always there. This is the approach described by the Novikov self-consistency principle.
• Multiple worlds, in which if you go back in time you just end up following a different "branch" of history forward from there.

Any of the models that let you "change your own history" are logically inconsistent and therefore utterly impossible. They just can't exist, like a square triangle or 1=2. They may be fine for entertaining movie plots but don't take them seriously.

I like the persistent present. We simply live with the paradoxes.

"Remember when Hitler was assassinated in 1919, 1933, 1936, and 1939, then off'd himself in his bunker in '45?"

From a quantum perspective the Deutschian and similar models are honestly pretty compelling. They essentially require matching up the past and present in a consistent way that can remove paradoxes.

These make the most sense because it's entirely possible to write down spacetimes that contain "closed time like curves" (CTCs) ie. paths connecting past and present and you can then just let physics play out on these models (or more commonly using black box quantum circuits). The only consistent way to do it is to make sure the past and future side of such curves agree. It's not my area at all, just something colleagues of mine did, but from memory there are nice approaches using the path integral formalism that work really nicely in these scenarios.

All that's to say that I don't think time travel leads to anything changing, the past will have always agreed with whatever time travel happens in the future.

Having worked very briefly with the spacetimes that produce CTCs, I don't expect we'll be able to time travel because they usually violate the weak energy condition.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mechanics_of_time_travel

I really like the nothing is changeable and travel is possible and anything you do while traveling has already happened / was already going to happen concept

Primer because Primer. (Video warning and some spoilers for a bunch of different films.)

I don't know if I would subscribe to it, but it is one of the more interesting ideas for time travel.

Its a one way trip. You can never go back to the original universe.

The past, present, and future do not exist as separate states.

Imagine a vast array of all possible states of matter in the universe. Imagine reality has a finite spacial resolution. With a series of numbers, or even a single very large number, you could provide a unique identifier for every possible arrangement of matter in the universe. The positions of every star and galaxy. The detailed interactions of every quark. Imagine a list or array that would have a number of entries equal to some indecent multiple of "ten to the ten to the ten...." Imagine all these possible states, every possible configuration the matter of the universe could occupy.

Then realize...All of these possible states exist at once. They are all as real as any other. There is no preferred state. They all exist in some vast "10 to the ten to the ten" dimensional spacetime. What we perceive as the flow of time is simply us moving from one of these states to another. But our consciousness cannot move arbitrarily between states. There are elaborate rules on which states you will be able to observe dependent upon the states you previously observed. We call these rules the laws of physics.

So when you travel through time, you are simply altering your path on this vast multiverse of possible realities. There is no "real" reality. They are all real. Every possible configuration of the matter and energies of the universe physically exist concurrently.

There are no timelines to split or erase, because there are no timelines. There are just conscious minds moving through a near-infinite array of possible "nows." And all of the nows exist simultaneously. There is no real one. From the perspective of a "time traveler," it will seem like they changed "the future." But the truth is the very idea of a past, present, and future as distinct entities is madness. We're just consciousness drifting through the continuum, from one of the near-infinite nows to another.

I believe it's impossible in the real universe.

Sure there are solutions of general relativity that contain time loops, but they require stuff like an infinitely long cylinder, or escaping a spinning black hole, or negative energy. I just don't believe beings made of finite matter and with finite energy will ever be able to time travel (except into the future at various rates) and that's the only kind of beings I think exist.

• You branch off into another timeline and your actions make no difference to the previous timeline

New actions, new consequences.

The one where you can only jump forward, not backward. It avoids the common paradoxes.

My personal favorite?

Space and time is an infinite number of parallel realities that constantly compress and unravel at every possible random chance. We are 4th (or 3.5th) dimensional beings that experience the most probable result aggregated from an infinite existence. If you time travel back in time, and change the past, it would not affect the your past, but it would affect your future, if you time traveled back to your current time.

Whatever Primer did, cuz that movie scratches my brain real good.

You can only change things you don't know about in advance. You know Hitler became chancellor of Germany, so you can't change that. But you can change the name of his dogs if you don't know what they were, and nobody who knew sent you back in time.

Probably something like attractor field theory from Steins;Gate. In my view it's basically timelines with a bit of topological though thrown on it to combine closely related timelines into bundles, similar to some algebraic topology concepts I guess.

I was just reading this article about a mathematical understanding of closed time-like curves.

In essence, the argument is that time travel to the part is possible with a degree of free will, but you would not be allowed to alter the part in such a way as to remove the motivation for traveling back in time. E.g., it would be like Futurama where Fry kills his grandfather, but he impregnates his grandmother, this allowing himself to be born. The idea is that the timeline would correct itself and ensure that your future self will always return to the past.

The first one makes the most sense to me, which is why I think time travel should be used to make significant changes. Go big or go home

Something else entirely, I don't think we're capable of understanding time (yet?)

Are you asking which system I think is the most plausible, or which is the most desirable?

Plausibility:

Well, I'd guess that time travel probably isn't possible, and if it is, it's probably under extremely limited conditions that render it impractical for viable exploitation. But if you're operating under the assumption that it is, I'd say the "your actions do not affect this timeline" or similar type.

Why?

We have had no record of time travel or seen phenomena likely resulting from it. If at time T, time travel is discovered, it seems unlikely that someone after that time wouldn't have come back in time and done something that we'd have noticed.

And it's not just us. If self-timeline-affecting time travel is possible, then you consider all the possible civilizations out there in the universe who might discover it at some point in time and want to take advantage of it. Yet we've seen nothing from them. It's the Fermi Paradox on steroids. The Fermi Paradox asks why intelligent aliens, half of whom statistically probably evolved before us and should have colonized the universe if they're out there, aren't visible to us. The time to travel over even huge distances, though it is large, is small compared to the time required to evolve a spacefaring civilization. But in the presence of self-timeline-affecting time travel, then even the evolutionary time becomes a non-factor, since civilizations from the future could also show up, and roll back in time with their advanced technology and make use of it from then. The question is no longer just "where is everyone", but the even harder to explain "where is everyone from all time?"

Okay, that's the plausibility question. How about the desirability one, which system I'd like to exist?

Hmm. I guess I'd give the same answer, the "no affecting your own timeline" form. I think that if you could affect your own timeline, that probably some kind of incident in the future -- only takes one -- would be likely to have mucked up things sufficiently to wipe out civilization, and we probably wouldn't be around to even be pondering the matter.

I don't need anymore subscriptions, thank you.

Something else, namely: Time isn't real and uncaused events are not only possible but more common that most people think.

Time travel does exist, but you can only go forward. You just need to approach the speed of light relative to a frame of reference, and you will travel a shorter time span compared to it.

Paradoxes slowly disintegrate the timeline you're in. Thousands of years, Deadpool 3 rules.

Infinite branches.

It feels more intuitive, and doesn’t involve any strange problems. It implies that the multiverse has infinite possibilities, they are all realized somewhere, and a time machine allows you to jump between them.

The most interesting one to me, and the one that makes the most sense, is that changes propagate forward in time at the same speed as everything else, so 1 second per second. Why would causality suddenly decide to go any faster than that? This effectively means that all "alternate timelines" exist on the same timeline, and overwrite each other as they move forward.

You can visualize this by coloring the original timeline red. When you time travel backwards, you arrive at an earlier point on the timeline and it begin overwriting it orange, with the "head" of the orange section expanding into its future, which is previously red. If someone travels into the orange area again, it turns yellow, etc. If the instant where you time travelled backwards to make the orange region gets overwritten, the color of the timeline to the left of the orange region would begin expanding to overwrite it at the same speed as any other change.

This does lead to some interesting things, like two time travel loops that include the same point in time literally slowly corrupting the timeline. One loop, where you travel back, wait until when you left, then travel back again, would cause the future from your departure point to continually be overwritten by each new loop color, sending constant-width "bands" of colored time forward before they're overwritten by the band from the next loop. Two loops' bands would almost certainly not be commonly divisible, so you'd eventually end up with "bands" moving forward and within the loop that get smaller and smaller, fragmenting the timeline into colored noise. If you lived on the timeline, though, you wouldn't notice-- even if you're in a timeline band that's only 1 second wide, you move with it, so nothing seems out of the ordinary. But if you travelled back to the same point in time repeatedly to check on it, or could freeze yourself in time and watch the bands pass through your point in time, things would be changing incredibly quickly. This also means that waiting time in the future before travelling backwards in time would let the past have time to be overwritten by a different band, so the same point in time would be different depending on when you left the future. All timeline damage would be repaired (at band-expansion speed) if you could remove all instances of time travel backwards to the offending loops, though.

IRL, the speed of causality depends on your speed, too, and in theory, timeline changes would expand outward at the speed of light. My brain is not big enough to think through all the potential consequences of relativistic weirdness and time travel at once, though. I suspect it would allow for "bands"/fragmentation not only in time but in space as well.

Like in Black Science, I think time travel would fuck with the fabric of reality. Make it shreddy.

I do not believe in nexus events; there is a personal reason (experience ) I don't expect anyone else to believe based on something I experienced but I don't. ETA: Unfortunately, everything has happened already, and I was very angry about it.

Just watched Arrival again yesterday and that's my other guess. More like your choice of "you have already done it, you can't alter the timeline" but can't go outside your lifetime, time doesn't work the way we think and we can perceive other "times" because they aren't really linear, just some quirk of our perception makes it seem that way, you really exist concurrently all along your existence.

But if some machine was designed to take you before or after your lifetime, it would tear at the fabric of reality (lifetime not exactly the correct word but your existence that has a beginning and end of some sort).

My belief is if you went to the past your actions would fully effect the future, no branches or anything else of course this will create paradoxes but if your a time traveller you will still exist even if you prevent your birth, if then you go back to the future there will be no record of your existence.

Hope that makes sense.

I subscribe to multiverse theory. It's probably the safest route and probably most likely.

Traveling to the past: You can't go into the past because doing so would change who you are and thus your reason for traveling in the first place. For example, killing Hitler when he was a baby would completely change the world as we know it, thus change you as you are. You might not have been born, or if you were, you wouldn't know who Hitler was, so there was no reason to go into the past, thus your time travel never happened in the first place. It's a paradox via butterfly effect. To underscore this further, you couldn't even change the history of another planet's species simply because it's still a part of your timeline. Same universe.

The only scenario where it might work is going into the past as an impartial observer and not having any impact at all (some kind of magical bubble where you are invisible and no effect on the past). That would be fun, because you get to learn about history firsthand.

An interesting time travel alternative is Trunks' timeline from Dragonball Z, where he went to the past, saved their future, but the androids in his timeline still persisted. This leads me to believe it was not just another time but another dimension (a la Rick and Morty).

Traveling to the future is a bit easier. Technically, with the proper spacecraft, you can go into the future (go sit around Sag A* for a bit), but it would be a future where you weren't around to have an influence in it. It would be like temporarily kidnapping yourself. This might be similar to how people came back five years later after being snapped by Thanos in the MCU.

IMO, the best use of time travel would be to go to the future tomorrow to scan ahead and see what happens (as long as you wouldn't have been needed in that future), then going back to the present time just seconds after you left. So little would have changed that your timeline would remain intact (only your biological clock would be off). So, you might be able to prevent incidents in the world by constantly jumping ahead to see what was going to happen. A future-scanning time traveler might have been able to prevent the recent New Orleans tragedy from happening. They could also be lazy and just learn the winning lottery numbers.

I think time travel as a being who perceives one dimensional time linearly is not possible. And for any entity who doesn't perceive time linearly it would be no different from traveling in a spacial dimension. It's just travel. Anything that entity does in that point is a permanent fixture to the entities that perceive it linearly.

So yes, if someone could travel in time in the SciFi sense, they wouldn't be able to change anything in their past experience (direct experience or prior to their perception, but in their event line) because that's already part of that point in spacetime to anyone who experiences it linearly.

But also, it's likely that time is not one-dimensional just like we know space is not only three-dimensional. So it is possible that you could end up in a separate "branch" of time that your past self from your perspective will never experience (directly or as past events), because it's not the same point in spacetime as the event in your direct past timeline. But it's not like there is a specific set of "branches". They likely don't branch off from a single trunk into the other dimension(s) or if they did "branch", it was at the same time as all other "branches", the beginning of the universe, not as specific events occur like in SciFi. And the changes you make in those branches were always part of those branches to people who will perceive the future of that timeline.

Theory: time is immutable, and the universe exists as a single timeline that repeats itself through a high-dimensional recursive or map-reduce. By “time travel,” you are essentially moving yourself across loops and jumping to a different iteration of this universe.

The one that exists.

Time travel to the future is possible if you travel fast enough. For example, traveling to the nearest galaxy at near-light speed wouldn’t take long for you, though it would take significantly longer for those observing you from Earth.

As for traveling to the past, I imagine it might involve the many-worlds interpretation of quantum physics, where every possible event that can happen does happen in a separate timeline. In this view, you wouldn’t be “changing” the past but rather experiencing an alternate version of it.

I don’t believe in free will, so I’m not concerned about the idea of altering the future by changing the past. If you traveled back in time and killed Hitler, it wouldn’t affect this timeline’s future; instead, you’d simply enter a timeline where that event occurred. The future of your original timeline would remain unchanged.

I think it would be like the first one, except instead of you going back to that time, you would be making a copy of that time to traverse to from your time, similar to how moving a file between devices causes it to be copied.

A relevant quote from a physicist is "some will say it's easier to predict the future than the past, since a single effect can have multiple possible causes but a single cause can only have one possible effect."

In either scenario, I'm more interested in where the matter you're made of will come from:

• Either you go to the past and suddenly add additional atoms to the universe.
• All the atoms you're made of will suddenly be taken from their origin to form you.
• You'll be made from entirely new atoms created from pure energy meaning your arrival will cost ~6.75 Quintillion as in 10^18 Joules (I eyeballed the speed of light here so don't @ me).

Either 1 or 3. I tend to lean towards 3

From a narrative sense the "nexus" theory is certainly the most amusing, which is probably why Terry Pratchett posited it works exactly that way on numerous occasions. It turns out that history really is kings and battles and speeches and dates, and in order for history to have actually happened someone has to observe those critical events. The things in between really don't matter. History as a whole further finds a way of happening whether people are involved in it or not, and regardless of -- or possibly despite -- anyone attempting to hinder, help, or change it. The key events will always happen eventually. All anyone can do is slightly influence how long it takes for them to do so, which is why there are so many boring spans in history where it seemed like nothing really happened; That's because it didn't. Possibly until some history monk noticed, and came along to pull out whatever spanner was holding up the works.

Branch off probably

Stories involving 2 are often the most fun, as well as 4 if they aren't lazy with the timeline corrections

1 feels the simplest and I would prefer it. With 3, unless the technology is limited to a few people, it's going to get messy

I think technically idea 2 and 3 have the same end result. I can't see 3 working without 2 already being true.

1

• something else

3 dimensions of space + 2 dimensions of time

Wormholes. Travel some place faster than light and see light from the past from your source of travel when you arrive, travel again back to your original spot and theoretically you travel backwards in time to before the light from the past that you just saw was even produced yet. Might work the same for just seeing the future if you glimpse through a wormhole that leads to someplace in the future by doing an Allie oop to further into the future someplace far away, then back to someplace in your future but your destinations past. Speed and gravity both impact time. A wormhole fits that description to a T.

Whichever is closest to science and physics.

It'd be a horrifying thought if the time travel theory you believed in was different to what you got, UGH just the thought gives me existential dread.

This also reminds me of:
::: spoiler Epilepsy warning at 5:57 - 6:07 INFINEURAL: This Time-Dilation Horror Game Gets More Unsettling the More You Think About It (2 Ends) :::

I'm definitely subscribing to the 3rd one, even if the 2nd one makes more sense to me...

One timeline, actions can have an effect. But once you time travel you unmoor yourself from normal causality, so you could do things that should negate your existence and nothing will happen to you.

Indeed, if you time travel again you can't affect your own actions anymore. Like, you travel back 20 minutes, do things for an hour, then jump back 5 minutes, when you go back the second time you can't alter yourself. You could go later the you from before you ever time traveled though.

Probably "read only"/neighboring dimensions. Can't change the timeline you came from. If you could there's just no way there wouldn't be evidence of people doing it.

But otherwise I guess "all changes due to time travel have already happened" as incompatible with free will as it is.

Each has Pros and Cons.

I liked what the show Dark did with the first idea. Having a constant move of time, and a fixed "jump distance"is really cool. Each new timelone also has those points, but some just happen to be created or destroyed in your lifetime.

The second seems kinda boring in real life (except for visiting the past) and can get really tricky fast if it would be usable in real life, but in movies it mostly rocks.

Having actions matter is very cool, but sounds dangerous and paradox-y. If not done like in Looper its still fun though (for real, don't watch that movie) and maybe it even has a fixed flow of time (like the tomorrow war).

What I would want the most and what prevents a lot of paradoxes though is the trope of "getting sent back into your younger body" like in butterfly effect (which got real stupid in the second half with the Jesus hands). But I would still really like that and in the best case with the possibility of going back in time after my death.

I mean I would say causality would be followed. So you change things and essentially create a new timeline. The only thing with that is if your time travel system could handle it. If you go back will you go back to your old timeline or your new one? Maybe you could choose but not necessarily. and of course any time you return to a point before you left you are further creating a new timeline. You would have to return after you left to preserve whatever you return to. So basically causality follows the individual and timelines pretty much always get created when time travel happens. Another interesting possibility is if you can manage to not change anything at all maybe you could stay in the original timeline. Its hard to say if that could even happen though as it would need at some point an original timeline without time travel to work off of.

I like the idea that the timeline you exist in is that and can still be determined but everything that happened in the pasr is set in stone. Future time travel is not possible.

Probably the branch off one.

Though, speaking of time travel, I really don't understand/like the whole Harry Potter dementor (however it's spelt) lake scene in the movie where future Harry saves past Harry. How does that work? Wouldn't in an initial timeline Harry have to somehow save himself before he could travel back in time to save his past self? The way I see it, it just looks like an infinite cycle of Harry saving his past self with no origin point.

Causality fracturing. Partly because observing Mandala effects. Basically causality has inertia and plasticity like matter, so soft changes bend and big changes tear, and inertial mass is also proportional to the time between the incursion and excursion points.