Talk:Time travel: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 02:29, 1 May 2013

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Time travel article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ).
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.

Article policies

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9

This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot I. Any threads with no replies in 3 months may be automatically moved. Sections without timestamps are not archived.

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

WikiProject Physics

(Rated C-class, High-importance)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.

C

This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.

High

This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Time

(Rated C-class, High-importance)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Time, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Time on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.

C

This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.

High

This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Science Fiction

(Rated C-class, High-importance)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Fiction, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science fiction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.

C

This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.

High

This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Philosophy

(Rated C-class, Low-importance)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.

C

This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

May I add The Bible Book of Genesis to Literature_timeline?

May I add The Bible Book of Genesis to Literature_timeline? In Genesis, God created the universe in 7 days despite it being billions of years old and God created things out of order. The movie Time Bandits puts forth that he used time travel. I'm not going to add it without discussion, but I think it seriously merrits adding. Think so too? Are you ready for IPv6? (talk) 23:13, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Please don't. To me it seems quite a drastic interpretation of what the authors of the bible thought when they wrote that God created the universe in 7 days. They almost certainly meant seven days in the pure litteral sense of the expression.--Grondilu (talk) 06:10, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Lacking A Rigorous Definition of Time Travel

Given that all matter does move through time constantly and moves through time at different rates, the introductory statement that time travel is simply moving from point A to point B on the timeline then questioning whether or not it is possible to do so is mistaken.

The bulk of the article seems to focus around the question of "if we could travel back in time, would we be able to experience historical events?" Physics has already shown that that is not possible. This was firmly established as soon as Einstein demonstrated space-time. Because physical laws are time symmetrical, there is no difference between moving backwards on a time-line or forwards on a time-line; the physcical results are the same. We do not have the ability to tell the difference between objects moving in opposite directions along the time-line, only if they are moving at different speeds. Our GPS satellite system proves Einstein's theory on time dilation and disproves any fictional concepts or hypothesis about time working any other way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.213.51.98 (talk) 23:40, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Absolute Zero

I was very surprised to see no mention of the most likely first form of time travel, which would involve super cooling. A partical with enough energy taken away from it will infact by moving in space time at a slower rate. Hence time travel — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.207.129.95 (talk) 15:31, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Freezing Time

The Time Travel page should also include insights on stopping time in one place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.231.27.203 (talk) 20:51, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Misleading Article

The "science" of this article leans more toward speculation bordering on science fiction, yet presents it in such a way that it is hard to distinguish speculation from proven science. Forward time travel has been proven experimentally (any modern physics textbook will recount the details for you), while time travel into the passed is purely speculative and indeed runs contrary to conservation of energy. This article should be cleaned up to differentiate speculation (even that done by respected theorists) from mainstream science.129.63.129.196 (talk) 19:35, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Quantum Entanglement Suggests Time Travel is Possible

Is there a way to work this article in here? It looks like relatively new information (2011) with fairly wide press coverage.

http://gajitz.com/quantum-entanglement-suggests-time-travel-is-possible/

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2011/01/timelike-entanglement/

Talk:Time travel: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 02:29, 1 May 2013

Contents

May I add The Bible Book of Genesis to Literature_timeline?

Lacking A Rigorous Definition of Time Travel

Absolute Zero

Freezing Time

Misleading Article

Quantum Entanglement Suggests Time Travel is Possible

Navigation menu

Personal tools

Namespaces

Variants

Views

More

Search

Navigation

Interaction

Tools

Print/export

Languages

@@ Line 42: / Line 42: @@
 The "science" of this article leans more toward speculation bordering on science fiction, yet presents it in such a way that it is hard to distinguish speculation from proven science. Forward time travel has been proven experimentally (any modern physics textbook will recount the details for you), while time travel into the passed is purely speculative and indeed runs contrary to conservation of energy. This article should be cleaned up to differentiate speculation (even that done by respected theorists) from mainstream science.[[Special:Contributions/129.63.129.196|129.63.129.196]] ([[User talk:129.63.129.196|talk]]) 19:35, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
+== Quantum Entanglement Suggests Time Travel is Possible ==
+Is there a way to work this article in here?  It looks like relatively new information (2011) with fairly wide press coverage.
+http://gajitz.com/quantum-entanglement-suggests-time-travel-is-possible/
+http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2011/01/timelike-entanglement/