New answers tagged

0

Your second question depends on how causality would work and is largely up to how you construct your fictional universe. Generally, time travel breaks down into one of two main paradoxes: The Grandfather Paradox and the Bootstrap Paradox. For both scenarios, imagine a billards table with the curious phenomena that each pocket is actually wormhole to a ...


1

I would change the Dollars to Euros and then travel back to 2010 and change it to Bitcoins. In May 2010, somebody bought two pizzas for 10000 Bitcoins. That's 73 Million Dollars today (but could soon be much more or much less). Two pizzas cost something around 15-20 Dollars so I could use the remaining 80-85 Dollars to actually buy Bitcoins. Maybe I'd get ...


-1

Step 1, find out when there was a big lottery jackpot that was not cracked and which numbers where used. Step 2, get the cash. You can use the identity of some ancestor if you need to. Step 3, keep all the cash


0

Mu The power gives objects an ability to interact with their own past. (Relative to us, it's the object interacting with its future. Relative to the future object, it is interacting with its past.) This guarantees the power can cause paradoxes. Since you have stipulated that it can't, this question has no answer. There is no way for this power to work ...


0

It might actually slow technological progress I recently started working in this area (ASIC research, not time-travelling death robots*), so I'm by no means an expert. But many ideas get patented and go nowhere, for many reasons. If you showed someone from 20 years ago a finfet or gate-all-around transistor, or a phase-change memory cell, they'd be ...


3

It is very hard to guess, almost impossible. They could likely figure out it was some sort of computer chip. I assume it would get into the hands of somebody smart & generous enough to take it apart and put it through a sufficiently powerful microscope and distribute their findings. Assuming they were really devoted to studying the thing, they could ...


0

I think it's important to realize that they didn't recover a chip from the technology era used to create SkyNet. They recovered a chip developed by SkyNet to run Terminators. There's no way of knowing how advanced the chip was, relative to technology from our own time. A machine intelligence with the ability to enhance itself can geometrically advance in ...


5

The most immediately actionable information would be the manufacturer's name. In the 1980's, especially the early 1980's, it was not obvious which chip manufacturers would survive. Knowing in the 1980's e.g. that Intel would be a survivor would be worth millions.


2

I disagree with the answers given so far. In hardware-design (and especially processors) there are some very hard mathematical problems. The problem is that if you change the specs of a single element this will also change the specs of everything that is connected. If you want to calculate the "sweet-spot" for all attributes of all transistors there are ...


3

Good sides and the big issue that a chip doesn't tell you how to make it have been pointed out already. Now for some words of caution - it might be even a trap. The big problem is that sending just a chip wouldn't offer any reason WHY changes were made - which is a crucial bit to improve stuff. For example, back then CPUs were planar and used SiO2 and ...


1

The first divergence wouldn't be on the hardware level, but in the way software is engineered. The hardware they get shows a strong focus on parallelism and a heterogenous architecture. CPU, GPGPU, the IO/memory controllers are seperate, smart components. A lot of current days struggles goes back to the then popular idea of having one powerful CPU, offload ...


11

The only thing that will change would probably be the approach to Moore's law. Since I have started chewing on computers, I have recurrently heard that "we have reached the limit of what is physically possible with miniaturization". First it was contact exposure, "we can't go smaller!" Then it came projection, "we can't go smaller!" Then it came ...


3

Modern processors probably would not give all that much of an advancement. Much of what we have learned requires high transistor counts to make them worth their while. Take FPGAs as an example. The idea is great, but when the number of transistors is low, brethren like CPLD are more efficient. Or look at FLASH memory, which is currently beating Moore's ...


1

Quite a lot actually. There is a lot of information to be gained, for which it is not necessary to have a complete, working understanding of the circuit. These include the IC packaging, it's chemical composition, the size of it's process technology. How the die or dies connect to each other, how the component is clocked, and how the clock in propagated ...


34

A single, broken IC of any sort is unlikely to create any change in direction of research, or spur any new breakthroughs. Almost all of the advancement since the 1980s has been in miniaturization, which has allowed more power for less.... power (I'm talking computing power per amp, etc). This has enabled new things like WiFi and video streaming and the like. ...


13

Not as much good as you think, most of the important computer hardware stuff that happened between 1980 and now already happened by ~2000. In many respects, software and society has spent decades trying to catch up to the potential of the explosion of good hardware as it is. Even if you gave Bill Gates access to i7 processors with solid state drives, ...


6

I don't think that quote is that meaningful. A microchip today is an evolution of chips of the 80s. But fundamentally they aren't different; it's based on the same principals, we made semiconductors on silicon wafers in the 80s, we still make them on silicon wafers today. With progress made on a myriad of disciplines coming together we've learned to make ...


12

No doubt it would be informative and encouraging. They should be able to extract the actual chip and examine it under and electron microscope. It would then indicate that fantastic amounts of miniaturisation were possible and that was the way to go. By 1980 they were already on that track but it would have been a great encouragement. Unfortunately it would ...


2

Step 1: Don't get involved The first day of training new agents, they are escorted into a room and told to sit down. Upon doing that, a man politely walks into the room and announces that under NO circumstances are field agents ever to get involved in a space-time anomaly. Doing so could jeopardize the time-space continuum and threaten the existence of all ...


6

Get a team of historians OK, so you have two broad areas where you want to avoid tampering with time causality - travelling to the past, and travelling to the future. You need a dedicated team of people to let you prepare for each: Travelling to the past Memo: To all agents. In light of the recent patricide incident with agent Dereka (previously agent ...


-1

It is not luck. It is hard, hard work. The failure of your clueless bumblers to create accidents and paradoxes is not due to their gifts or their great good luck. It is active management by entities in your own timeline. Agents from this group exert influence through time and reality to run interference and minimize damage caused by (your) bull-in-a-...


0

Time machines charge up over time, but primitive ones only hold a certain charge. So, a machine built in the year 2030 could send someone back 1 year before its activation for each year it is on, so in 2050 you could go back to 2010, but its time boundaries would max out at 100 years in 2130, allowing a maximum time travel to 1930. A newer time machine ...


0

Better engines need better fuels Using current tech, even a tiny nuclear reactor requires a ginormous hydroelectric dam to perform the enrichment processes you need to make the reactor work. I'd imagine the facilities you need to make the fuel your time machine requires something at least as impractical to attach to your tiny timeship. Your older time ...


0

Your time machine has a Y2K bug. On Doc Brown's DeLorean there appears to be no way to enter a year before 1BC or after 9999AD. And even 1BC is a stretch, because Doc Brown has no QA department and I wouldn't want to be the first person to try putting in 0000 as the date and seeing whether it works or just explodes. Maybe on the inside your time machine ...


0

You know how some cell phone providers have better network coverage because they have put up more 3G/4G/5G towers around the countryside? It's just like that with time-machine service providers. There are specialist exploratory time-machines. Those things are large, inefficient, slightly dangerous, very inaccurate (and the perceived time for the trip can ...


0

End of rope The time machine cannot go back in time by the vehicle alone, it needs a rope tied to the current time, act as: an energy cable, time travelling need much more energy than what could possibly stored. It also take a lot of energy just to keep the machine at the time point. And there is limitation on how long can the cable reach. a trail, there ...


0

The issue is that there's not just one timeline, but there are many. And with many, I don't mean two, or three, not even a million. Even for time jumps less than a year, the number of significantly different timelines is larger than the number of atoms in the universe. And even worse, while 21st century scientists still thought only the future timelines ...


1

How far back you can go depends on the earliest identifiable fork in the time stream you can nail down Almost all models of time travel involve some kind of forking in the time stream. Each branch can form the definition of an epoch time, where $t = 0$. Because of how the time equations work or time travel, movement in $t > 0$ requires evaluating the $ln(...


3

It has been designed with this restriction From the user point of view, you enter your DeLorean, set the desired datetime in a display, and it moves you there. Easy enough, right? But in order to do that, behind the curtain the time machine will need to know the current datetime and location, determine the destination location (by default it will be the ...


0

Time machines experience an effect known as temporal drag. The further you move through time the stronger the effect becomes, until eventually it completely balances out the ability of the machine to move. Interestingly, the effect is relative to the subjective "now" the machine comes from, so the effect causes drag when moving "away" from subjective "now" ...


0

I'd argue with a reasoning on two bases: Time travelling is only partially understood. Yes, there are theories, working time machines, and we even have experimental proof. But all theories start to break down if you try set the time interval too big. This part is quite realistic - yes, we have theories, and they do explain the parts of reality they model ...


0

It's not actually a more advanced time machine. In order to successfully navigate time time machines need two reference objects which must be built into the machine, they're not replaceable parts. These objects must have been obtained from two different points in time and provide a calibration scale only between those two points. Note that I say ...


0

Processing Requirements Simply put, the computer isn't smart enough to know that far. Not without an upgrade. See, while the time machine is able to travel to various different times, the computer intelligence was made at a very specific point in time. And in order for time machines to work, these computers effectively estimate every instance of true ...


0

It's obvious when you understand temporal mechanics. You better get an A in quantum mechanics first though. When a time machine is first turned on, it must begin by surveying the temporal landscape. This initial state is represented by a quantum matrix within the machine. This means it must obey the no-cloning limitation preventing this state from ever ...


1

There was a story I read, I believe it was in the first volume of "Isaac Asimov: The Complete Stories", which was a collection of his short stories. The Ugly Little Boy by Isaac Asimov. In the short story, time had charge or momentum. So the further an object was out of its own moment, the more energy required to keep the object stable. So in the story, ...


0

Well, clearly such a machine would have some sort of reference to the time it was built. And that property would be central to the core element of the machine that enables time travel. So, maybe it's some kind of an exotic matter that is required to travel through time. The exotic matter would have its technological imprint of the time at which it was ...


2

Your first generation time machines were built on the principle of quantum teleportation (spooky action at a distance). As researchers had theorized as early as the 21st century, the property of entanglement and quantum teleportation was a kind-of wormhole. Benico Flores, in his famous proof of 2057, demonstrated mathematically that quantum teleportation ...


1

At a certain point in history, something happened which made time travel possible. This moment is the fulcrum around which time travel occurs. Handwavium is the core component of a time machine. All existing handwavium was created as a result of the fulcrum event. Handwavium naturally accumulates a temporal charge over time, but must be shielded during the ...


2

A new quantum discovery: The Heizenberg Uncertainty Time Principle The Heizenberg Uncertainty principle is the mathematical trade-off between where a particle is and how much momentum it has. The particles position is uncertain and exists in a 'broad range' depending on its velocity and mass. Just as a particle has an uncertain location based on its ...


2

Something about the process of time travel means that the machine is "attuned" to "its present". (Maybe the machine has to create some sort of not-entirely-stable "field" in order to displace in time, which has to be maintained continuously, or everything that has been displaced will "snap back" to the present.) As a result, time machines can only travel a ...


19

The problem is time density. The substance of time is harder to travel through the earlier you go, needing more powerful and efficient machines. But it's not linear, increases in density are sudden and discrete events, which means that it's really easy to go to 1901 but the first machines couldn't go further. The next and more efficient versions had the ...


7

Our observable present is carried along through time like a stick floating on a river. The only thing that stops us leaving the stick and travelling with a different speed and/or direction is our inability to swim - the "water" of time has little friction and we can't (so far?) make a machine that can push against it to propel us away from the present. ...


3

My timemachine can only go back as far as it was created (see other answers). Your time machine works on a different premise - it's on a spaceship which punches through to a universe where time runs backwards. You then go into stasis for as long as you want to go back, revives you and then you punch through back to your original universe. It's much more ...


28

There are a number of science theories about time travel that suggest that a time machine can only take you back in time to the moment that machine was constructed and no further. This would explain why we don’t see time travelers all the time today. These time machines also solve the problem of Earth drift. Rather than transporting you through time, the ...


16

The Earth isn't stationary The Earth is spinning while rotating around the sun rotating around the galaxy in an expanding universe. Continents are drifting and even an earthquake can alter the tilt of the planet. Travelling in time is the easy bit. Working out where the Earth is and the exact spot you want to be is the hard bit. Each newer time machine has ...


2

Understanding the details and maths of time-travel is hard, but let's look at it in some layman terms. Time while passing through at its constant pace on surface of earth generates some extraordinary particles, we call then time-tachyons, These particles don't exist in the current world but in a type of zone that has no concept of time on its own. Our ...


47

The time-machine's dependent on its reference core, a thing from the past that can be dated back to a certain period or even point-in-time (e.g. a painting, book, pebble). The more historically/culturally significant a thing is, the better it works for time travel. While a pebble or rock can bring you back millions of years, the machine will easily drift ...


1

Watch this video, it explains pretty well what went wrong and how you could solve it. Barbarossa: The Major Errors and Blunders - or why Barbarossa failed.


0

Discourage development of the Rätte, the Maüs, the V-series rockets (these would eventually become effective weapons, but Germany didn't have the proper technology), and the Bismarck. Seriously, these were major time wasters. In their place, encourage production of the Sturmgeschutz series. Also, let the guys at R&D finish the Sturmgewher Project, as it ...


Top 50 recent answers are included