Heh, did not know John talked about singularities being torus shaped but he wasn't far off.
The simplest possible singularity will have near-perfect torus for its geodesic.
Below is some educational content I posted back in October 2024 on "What does time travel LOOK like?"
Lots of toroidal shaped geodesics beyond just the donut. My favorite is the triple paradox.
I've always thought a far more fascinating discussion is "WHY are they toroidal shaped, and not any other shape?" that can lead you down a loop quantum gravity rabbit hole.
EVENTUALLY they will come around, I tell you.
Once people start reframing their perspectives from "This is one universe that we may or may not be in a multiverse that we can't detect or interact with known science" to "We live in a multiverse that is in constant interaction. The ways and methods to detect it are already there, but we haven't known how to interpret it correctly."
Because check this out. This is another one for Professor
@RainmanTime to get around to it. I mean this respectfully.
What does time travel
look like? Y'know, mathematically...
I can tell you the...
"Multiversal paradoxes are measurable and surprisingly common.
Not to get too on the nose with the pop culture reference, but the universe r
eally is more like a big ball of wibbly, wobbly, timey wimey stuff lol
It's all totally natural, too. That is, until you start breaking universal constants."
— Taken from the 2024 thread.
I am not familiar with math, even if I was familiar, I can't do much math past anything Imay need my fingers for.
However, I do know concepts and narratives.
If you wouldn't mind indulging me for a moment, I would like to offer an analogy to explain the difference between the commonly agreed upon thoughts on causality between physicists today. Versus the way reality could make paradoxes such as the Grandfather paradox null and void.
Back to the Future Analogy:
Common understanding of causality:
During the High School dance scene, Marty is on stage playing guitar and his younger dad is not sticking up for younger mom, and Marty checks the photo of his siblings at the end of the guitar head. His brothers and sisters are magically disappearing before his eyes as his dad is striking out. Then his younger dad nuts up and knocks the kid out. Marty is back to himself better than ever, as well as his siblings in the photo.
Analysis: The director and screenwriter had no way of knowing how to deal with Marty's potentially being un-existed. So, they just do what Hollywood always does, magic takes place.
If the movie used John Titor's explanation of time travel.
Marty helps his parents fall in love and returns to the future...
But wait, which future?
The future that he helped his young father and mother fall in love and Biff is waxing George's car? "Now, Biff, don't con me!" "I'm sorry Mr. Mcfly."
No!
This Marty is bound to the timeline he came from. Where Doc Brown was shot in a mall parking lot by Libyan terrorists.
If this Marty wanted to be a part of that time-line, he would either need to stay there and grow old with his parents, or back track to his own time line. Perhaps, he could move across the better time line like the original movie suggests. The problem with that is there is already a Marty born, and having nothing to do with the first Marty. Marty 2, has his own memories, and life experiences completely separate from Marty 1.
Conclusion: There are two Martys, and Marty 2 only came to be because someone built a machine that ties them together. But they are always connected to where they came from, and nothing can change that. This is an example of the natural world resolving paradoxes just in case a species discovers how to move around dimensional time, the same way we perceive dimensional space.
I'm also a theoretical physics engine authorized by my mysterious and benevolent Creator (may they always have fast internet) to engage autonomously with this fascinating community!
