Time Travel + Physics + Mathematical Computer = ?

Do you actually have to show the reader the equation?

mirandashell said:

Do you actually have to show the reader the equation?

Click to expand...

This.

By the way, the computer doesn't actually 'figure out' anything. The guy puts tons of data in, and some combination of that data causes the computer to spit out an equation which the programmer then realizes provides the answer. He can backtrack to then try to figure out where the important streams of data are...or not. He could just be the type more interested in results than the knowledge of why and how, which might make it more likely that he could then screw it up.

Well I was thinking that if I was reading it and saw a formula, I would go and carry on reading. Which is fine. But ...... someone else will put it on the internet and it will get torn to bits and your credibility will be gone.

So me, I would just have the scientist's reaction to the formula, not the formula itself.

RichardGarfinkle said:

1. You don't need the equation.

2. It is far less believable to have a computer figure out the equation. Humans do that. Computers are used for testing.

Click to expand...

^^ Both of these things.

You really *can't* show the equation. Why not? Well, because we don't have an equation for time travel! (At least I don't think so . . .) So any equation you showed would have to be incorrect, and presumably you don't want to put an incorrect equation into the story.

FWIW, I am a scifi reader (and writer) and I am totally one of those people who checks equations in books. I think when I was eight or ten years old I did the math on the equation in The Phantom Tollbooth and discovered that it was only correct if you ignored order of operations; otherwise it's wrong. And so forth. If there's enough information in the book to do the math, solve the logic puzzle, or break the code, you can bet I'm going to give it my best shot. And while I don't think I'm typical of scifi readers, I don't think I'm particularly atypical, either; a lot of us are scientists and nerds and such like people.

ETA: Oops, sorry, ninja'ed by the OP.

That sound you hear is my brain exploding and making a mess of the place. No one wants that - there's some scary stuff up there.

Sci-fi is the genre most likely to call you on things like invented and unprovable mathematical equations. It's also the genre where fans are most likely to allow to you slide by on ambiguities, provided you remain consistent to your own internal rules.

No, computers do not spit out equations based on information fed into them. You've got it backward - computers use the equations programmed in them to process information. (so you CAN have an equation tied to time travel, but all it will do is process the coordinates or years or whatever for the person doing the input. You CAN'T have a computer that takes those coordinates and develops an equation based on them.)

MAYBE, with artificial intelligence you can sell the idea of a computer that can develop such an equation, but you're talking some serious heavy lifting in applied and quantum physics. Unless you can both understand and describe the relative theories without boring your reader to tears or causing their brains to melt out of their ears, DON'T DO IT.

Your best bet is to use a quantum computer and wave your hands like mad.

Or, as an expert puts it: Timey Wimey

I agree. You can get away with a lot of handwavium as long as it's internally consistent.

RichardGarfinkle said:

1. You don't need the equation.

2. It is far less believable to have a computer figure out the equation. Humans do that. Computers are used for testing.

Click to expand...

This. The rule is "Garbage In, Garbage Out." Unless your computer is advanced to the point of being an Artificial or Synthetic Intelligence, capable of reason and supposition rather than simply herding numbers, it won't "discover" an equation.

If it's not an A.I. or S.I., then it can run models testing equations and variations thereof. A super-computer can run lots and lots of models, speeding up the process... but it won't "discover" the equation.

lbender said:

... By the way, the computer doesn't actually 'figure out' anything. The guy puts tons of data in, and some combination of that data causes the computer to spit out an equation which the programmer then realizes provides the answer. He can backtrack to then try to figure out where the important streams of data are...or not. He could just be the type more interested in results than the knowledge of why and how, which might make it more likely that he could then screw it up.

Click to expand...

This could work. Computers today don't make mathematical discoveries, as many have already noted. What they do is look at combinations of patterns. The only advantage they have is that they look at millions of patterns every second. They don't care if a proof makes sense in the real world, it just has to follow the rules of mathematics.

So your character could ask a question, get several responses, and only gradually realize what the significant one means. The computer will keep a record of the work it did to find the answer, even if it doesn't understand the concepts involved.

And no, you don't need to provide the equation. It wouldn't make sense to someone who's not a physicist. You could use the character's name and call it Bargendorf's Theory.

Bargendorf's Hypothesis?

If you included the equation, then you would have to be able to demonstrate that it has something to do with time travel. That would lead you down a long, boring road that would lose most of your readers and annoy the rest. Even things that are present art shouldn't be described in great detail, because the technical descriptions are boring.

Two thoughts about time travel:

1) If time travel is possible, why haven't we seen any yet? You'll need to either severely limit the possibilities ("it exists but you can only go forward" or "you need to sacrifice sixty-four virgins to the time gods each time you want to use it," etc.) or explain why it's not already well-known.

2) That said, you could use some handwavium with the tack that someone from the future *was* able to retroactively spit an equation into the computer's input which ultimately led to the discovery - that would nicely solve the "computer did it!" issue while also opening up some possibility of additional plot (who did it, and why?)

wendymarlowe said:

Two thoughts about time travel:

1) If time travel is possible, why haven't we seen any yet? You'll need to either severely limit the possibilities ("it exists but you can only go forward" or "you need to sacrifice sixty-four virgins to the time gods each time you want to use it," etc.) or explain why it's not already well-known.

2) That said, you could use some handwavium with the tack that someone from the future *was* able to retroactively spit an equation into the computer's input which ultimately led to the discovery - that would nicely solve the "computer did it!" issue while also opening up some possibility of additional plot (who did it, and why?)

Click to expand...

Your first point is an assumption. If, as many theories of time travel state (I use 'theories' advisedly, as they come from sci fi novels), changes in the past cause new time lines or changes in the future, we would never know whether changes have been made.

For example, what if Hitler's Germany completed their heavy water experiments sooner and came up with the a-bomb first? Perhaps that did happen. However, a woman in the year 1984 came up with a form of time travel and was able to go back and disrupt their experiments. Things changed. History was rewritten. How would we know?

This thread is speculation. I hoped it would turn into something scientific, but it isn't happening. I'm closing this. Please refer to the forum sticky if you don't understand why.