Talk:Time travel

   A colleague (who didn't take the trouble to encourage constructive discussion by even saving -- for those who care who the colleague is or when they held forth -- the trouble of searching the edit history) did add to {{BASEPAGENAME}}#Tourism in time the following comment markup (to which i've added meta-markup, on this talk page, trying to make the markup display in a more intuitively clear way here):

: "This picture would explain why we haven't been over run {{sic}}

::

: by tourists from the future."

   The colleague's concern for non-misrepresentation is praiseworthy, even tho the wording "have tried to edit" reeks too much of the Inquisition or the Klan, and the typographic travesty that is their solution may not even be appropriate for some critical edition of Hawking's works. Here -- leaving behind the pedants' concern about who (Hawking, an editor, a typesetter?) is responsible for the inappropriate internal space -- is an encyclopedia-appropriate version of the passage:

: "This picture would explain why we haven't been [overrun] by tourists from the future."

It's literate, harmless, almost devoid of distraction, and not significantly better nor worse than

: Stephen Hawking says that this picture would explain why our times haven't been overrun by "tourists from the future."{{cn|date=January 2015}}

--Jerzy•t 04:21 & 07:05, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi, looked into this a while back.

One of the arguments against time travel is the "Chronology Protection Conjecture" (S W Hawking) also known as 'Niven's law of conservation of history' and an older variant being the 'Novikov self-consistency principle' where either paradoxes are a physical impossibility, the Universe prevents them being observed in real space and time eg by event horizons or any backwards time travel only observes and not changes the past and any changes made are random chance only. The current research appears to be suggesting that superluminal particles like tachyons may "drag" very light normal matter into FTL which would in fact not invalidate the laws we already know, as that energy exchange cancels itself out at a short distance from the source purported to be cosmological likely a Blitzar.

Pair production in black holes (Hawking radiation) seems to be a way to experimentally test this, and Feynman was the physicist who first suggested that one way to model antimatter is regular matter moving back in time to the moment of its annihilation.

Generating an artificial event horizon in superconductors of a specific internal geometry bombarded with gamma rays at a specific energy range tuned to the elements used seems possible and I am actually looking into this possibility. 91.190.161.160 (talk) 05:30, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

:Please let us know when you have some reliable references. Johnjbarton (talk) 15:13, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

It is weird this redirects here. It is mentioned in few places, and we have a section on 'early time machines', but that's about it. That section could probably be split into the new article to be written. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:59, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

::I guess an article on "Time machine" would be focused on fictional accounts rather than the more pseudo-physics take of this article. Each article should have a one-paragraph summary of the other one. Johnjbarton (talk) 16:49, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

:An alternative could be to change the redirect target for time machine to time travel in fiction and cover it there. TompaDompa (talk) 21:50, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

::Fine solution for now. Although this article here could do with pruning fiction stuff (moving it there), it seems to mix real science and fiction a bit too much for my taste. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:25, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

:Now the Time machine links are completely messed up. Please see next topic. Johnjbarton (talk) 15:53, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

• https://archive.org/details/timemachinestime0000nahi (book: Time machines : time travel in physics, metaphysics, and science fiction

by Nahin, Paul J)

• https://sf-encyclopedia.com/entry/time_machine
• The Greenwood Encyclopedia of Science Fiction and Fantasy - no entry, but brief but useful mentions here in there (ex. in entries on Time and Time Travel) - p. 818, 820

Will post more sources soon (and maybe write the article too...) _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:59, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

:Historical Dictionary of Science Fiction Literature by Brian M. Stableford - mentions in various places, and a dedicated entry (p.355-356) _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:01, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

:The Visual Encyclopedia of Science Fiction - some mentions here and there. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:17, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

As far as I can tell the current mess is:

• "Time machine" redirects to "Time Travel"
• "Time Machine" is a funky disambiguation page
• "Time machine (device)" is an article
• "Time Machine (disambiguation)" is an article that has a bunch of content that belongs on "Time machine (device)"

Proposal:

• "Time machine" redirects to "Time Machine (disambiguation)"
• "Time Machine redirects to "Time machine"
• "Time machine (device)" is an article
• "Time Machine (disambiguation)" is only disambiguation

I'm going to move forward as the current situation is clearly bonkers. Johnjbarton (talk) 16:01, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

:Ok the current set up is

:* "Time Machine" is a funky disambiguation page

:* "Time Machine (disambiguation)" redirects to "Time Machine"

:* "Time machine (disambiguation))" redirects to "Time Machine (disambiguation)"

:* "Time machine" redirects to "Time Machine"

:* "Time machine (device)" is an article with some content that may belong on the disambiguation page.

:The final step requires technical move help:

:* Swap Time Machine with Time Machine (disambiguation).

:Johnjbarton (talk) 16:21, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

{{od}}Oh dear, I was unaware that it was this complicated (didn't know about the time machine (device) article, for instance). I started typing up a response before realizing that you had already started editing the pages so my reply was outdated before it was even finished. At any rate, I appreciate you trying to fix this, {{u|Johnjbarton}}, but I'm not sure if it turned out the way it should. The current content of the Time machine (device) article is a mess. There's both a list of fictional time machines and a list of works titled "[The] Time Machine[s]", but there is no actual article on the concept of time machines there. The list should of works bearing that title should be moved to the disambiguation page, the list of fictional time machines should simply be removed, and the article should probably be redirected to the disambiguation page for now. I'm inclined to think that the best options are either (1) cover the fictional concept at the time travel in fiction article and have the disambiguation page at time machine, or (2) cover the fictional concept at a stand-alone time machine article and have the disambiguation page at time machine (disambiguation). To my eye, the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for the title "time machine" is the fictional concept as a whole, for "Time Machine" there is WP:NOPRIMARYTOPIC, and for "The Time Machine" it is the H. G. Wells work The Time Machine. {{ping|Piotrus}} what are your thoughts on this? TompaDompa (talk) 16:38, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

• There is nothing "funky" about Time Machine as a disambiguation. Time machine (device) is the funky page. Why do you say Time Machine (disambiguation) {{gi|is an article that has a bunch of content that belongs on "Time machine (device)}}? It is and has been a standard {{tl|R to disambiguation}} for a long while now. The rest of the proposal is quite unclear and appears to not be aligned with standard WP:MOSDAB practices. older ≠ wiser 17:02, 13 March 2025 (UTC)
• :I agree that some of the content I moved was disambiguation and I agree that the "Time machine (device)" article leaves much to be desired. However consider this line:
• :* "Time Machine", Aqua Teen Hunger Force season 6, episode 6 (2009)
• :To the extent this is notable for an encyclopedia, it is content about the topic "Time Machine". Its not disambiguation.
• :This one example of many in Time Machine.
• :The primary problem I set out to solve was "Time machine" redirecting to "Time travel" That is just wrong. We have an article specifically for time machines called "Time machine (device)". Johnjbarton (talk) 18:25, 13 March 2025 (UTC)
• ::I'm going to have to contradict you on two points. Firstly, that entry about the Aqua Teen Hunger Force episode is a disambiguation entry, nothing else. We don't have a Time Machine (Aqua Teen Hunger Force episode) article, but we do have such a redirect in case somebody is looking for the Aqua Teen Hunger Force episode titled "Time Machine". Secondly, Time machine (device) is not an article specifically for time machines—it's something of a mess where it is unclear what exactly it is or is intended to be. TompaDompa (talk) 19:22, 13 March 2025 (UTC)
• :::Yes, the entries on Time Machine all appear to be proper disambiguation entries (I have not verified that there is some mention of the term at each of the targets, but I'll assume good faith for the time being.
• :::@Johnjbarton Please review the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Time_Machine#Requested_move_30_May_2019 requested move discussion in 2019] that resulted in the present arrangement. With the exception of the purported device(s) represented by the redirect to time travel as a broad concept article that has some coverage of the topic -- ALL of the other entries on the dab are titled works. That is why the page is at title case (as well as why there is presumption of a primary topic redirect to time travel for the fictional/hypothetical devices). There is no prejudice against the possibility that Time machine (device) could become the primary topic -- but at present, I think most readers are better served by a redirect to the more general topic. older ≠ wiser 20:57, 13 March 2025 (UTC)
• :::I'm sorry, I don't understand your logic. Aqua Teen Hunger Force is primary topic. It has pages of content. As far as I understand your logic, everything about Aqua Teen Hunger Force could be listed as an entry in a DAB page somewhere. Merchandise (Aqua Teen Hunger Force), Theme music (Aqua Teen Hunger Force), Running gag (Aqua Teen Hunger Force) and so on. It's not sensible.
• :::Someone looking for Aqua Teen Hunger Force episode titled "Time Machine" should search for just like the search for "Aqua Teen Hunger Force Merchandise", or "Aqua Teen Hunger Force running gag". DAB page are not substitutes for search, they exist to disambiguate notable topics in Wikipedia.
• :::* Disambiguation in Wikipedia is the process of resolving conflicts that arise when a potential article title is ambiguous, most often because it refers to more than one subject covered by Wikipedia, either as the main topic of an article, or as a subtopic covered by an article in addition to the article's main topic.
• :::The words "Time machine" don't even appear in Aqua Teen Hunger Force.
• :::Those entries are not proper DAB entries. Johnjbarton (talk) 21:57, 13 March 2025 (UTC)
• ::::Sorry, but you are not actually looking at the target that is linked from the dab page. Aqua Teen Hunger Force season 6 does in fact mention the episode titled "Time Machine". older ≠ wiser 22:02, 13 March 2025 (UTC)
• :::::Thanks! OMG the episodes all have redirect pages! So ridiculous.
• :::::Ok so it's not possible to fix things so silly. My original and now only goal is to stop redirecting Time machine to Time travel when there is a main article on "Time machine" called Time machine (device). Johnjbarton (talk) 22:10, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

{{od}}{{ec}} I'll try to explain what I mean more clearly. There is an episode of Aqua Teen Hunger Force titled "Time Machine". On the Time Machine disambiguation page, there is an entry that says:

"Time Machine", Aqua Teen Hunger Force season 6, episode 6 (2009)

:Yes, thanks I got that. I think it is nuts. The article "Time machine" should include all notable examples of the use of time machines across all genres and topics. If Aqua Teen Hunger Force season 6 has a time machine episode, then Time machine can link Aqua Teen Hunger Force season 6.The DAB page system, and worse Wikipedia's redirect system, should not be abused this way. Johnjbarton (talk) 22:22, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

::The article "Time machine" should certainly not include all notable examples of the use of time machines across all genres and topics. It should provide a summary of the overarching topic, with each aspect receiving coverage in WP:PROPORTION to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. TompaDompa (talk) 22:26, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

:::Sure, so in particular, Aqua Teen Hunger Force season 6 deserves at most a link in a list. Which is exactly what is in Time Machine-the-DAB-page now. That is why I moved the content from the DAB page to the article. If you argue that the use of time machine in Aqua Teen Hunger Force season 6 is not notable, I would agree, but by that same reasoning it should not be in the DAB page either. Johnjbarton (talk) 22:32, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

::::That's not what I'm saying. Items don't need to be WP:NOTABLE, in the Wikipedia-specific sense, to belong on a WP:Disambiguation page. It is sufficient that they are (1) referred to by the ambiguous title being disambiguated—in this case, "Time Machine"—and (2) covered somewhere on Wikipedia that we can link to so people who are looking for the topic to find information about it—see WP:DABMENTION. Nor is WP:NOTABILITY, again in the Wikipedia-specific sense, relevant to whether this instance of a time machine in a work of fiction should be mentioned on the article about time machines in general—WP:PROPORTION is what matters there. TompaDompa (talk) 22:45, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::Fine, we disagree. Listing every possible topic that every possible person will want to search for in a disambiguation page is just not sensible. We tried that way back in the early days of the Internet, back when we spelled it with a capital I. As soon as search engines happened all those listy pages were ignored. Picking some topics to put in some DAB page is just of form of non-neutral point of view.

:::::But I do not propose to take any action or ask for anyone else to take action. I only want to fix the redirect from Time machine to Time travel. Johnjbarton (talk) 23:03, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::I am glad to see TompaDompa is working on the time machine entry (I planned to do it in the near future, but I trust them to do a great job!). As for the redirects etc. I think the current rewritten (or still in-the-works?) version of the time machine (device) (which I concur is superior to the old mess that it held) should be moved to time machine, which is the primary meaning (and where I was going to create my article, that would look similar to what TD is doing). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:58, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::::I basically just created a stub as a proof of concept or minimum viable article for a time machine article as distinct from the broader time travel concept since somebody else had already created an article at the time machine (device) title that I did not find satisfactory (it should definitely be moved to the title time machine, being the clear WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for the non-capitalized title). I intend to work a little bit more on it, but we could probably get a few thousand words' worth of content if we do a real deep dive into the sources, and I don't plan to devote that much time and effort to it. I am also—still—open to merging the contents into time travel and/or time travel in fiction, as appropriate. TompaDompa (talk) 19:22, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

30px

The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Time_machine&redirect=no Time machine] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at {{section link|1=Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 March 13#Time machine}} until a consensus is reached. Johnjbarton (talk) 18:28, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Time machine (device) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 19:16, 21 March 2025 (UTC)