From: pksuk@mothra.syr.EDU (Peter K. Suk)
Subject: Re: Time Travel and Causality Violation
Followup-To: rec.arts.sf.science,rec.arts.startrek.tech
Organization: Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 92 10:41:55 EST

In article <BCR.92Dec15205439@hfl3sn02.cern.ch> 
bcr@cernapo.cern.ch (Bill Riemers) writes:

>>>>>> On Mon, 14 Dec 92 11:03:09 EST, 
>>>>>> pksuk@mothra.syr.EDU (Peter K. Suk) said:
>
>> We dealt with this in the previous discussion.  If the entire history of
>> the universe is predetermined, such that no paradoxes occur, the simplest
>> configuration for this universe would be:
>>
>>	There is no time travel.
>>
>> If the time continuum heals itself by changing history such that no 
>> paradoxes occur, the simplest change would be:
>>
>> 	There is no time travel.
>
>Let me point out:
>
>  1) I never suggested that a HEALING process was taking place.  I
>     was simply suggesting that impossabilities are impossable before
>     the fact.  

If changes in the time continuum are instantaneous, how is this
distinguishable from your theory?  (I don't understand exactly.
Can you give an example with the electron?)

>> So if time travel were possible in a single-timeline universe, then 
>> things would happen to insure that no one invented and successfully
>> operated a time machine.  (And if time machines are at all complicated,
>> one could easily see how this would happen.)
>
>I don't agree with this conclusion.  For possability of PRE-DETERMINATION you
>state that the simplest configuration would be that there is no time travel.
>To this I agree, but let me point out:  
>
>  1) The simplest configuration for the universe would be for it not to 
>     exist at all.

Point well taken.

>   further seperated in "history of causation" are less effected.  Lastly,
>   most paradoxes consist of a complex series of events that occure after
>   time travel.  Ergo, the prefered universe (that occupying the most
>   phase space) is unlikely to be the one without time travel.

Please explain how the universe is mapped into your phase space and why
the one you say is biggest is the biggest.  (I kind of understand, but
need more explication.)

I must admit, you have a more compelling set of reasons for your
version of time-travel physics.  Also, the Langevin time results
support your conclusions.  The following was my line of reasoning.
Comments would be appreciated:

Given that:

	1) Mass/energy must be conserved
	2) Single universes produce paradoxes

The following universe attempts to take care of these.  

First, no matter can be sent through time.  When somebody time-travels,
they essentially _explode_ and some time in the past, a bunch of matter
comes together and froms them.  You can think of there being TWO universes
then.  In universe 1, all "time travellers" are cranks who die in
explosions, and there is no time travel.  In universe 2, the time
travellers arrive, making whatever changes in the time continuum they
choose to make.  If any of them choose to go on from u2, these folks
explode and die in u2 and go on to u3.  Essentially, people can only
arrive in a new universe.  (You can never go back) 

The result: there is always a clear way of ajudicating what will happen
in time-travel conflicts.  Paradoxes happen, but are only paradoxes
from the viewpoint of any one universe.

Admittedly, this is not compelling as a physical theory, but it is very 
useful for literary purposes.  No matter HOW convoluted the time-travels
get, one can always unravel what happens.

	--Peter Kwangjun Suk





Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science