# Crossing parallels

## Recommended Posts

People talk about a parallel time lines but what they do not discuss is the possibility of those parallel time lines crossing. Eventually there would be crosses because the time lines would be in sync at that point. Question is, once they cross would they remain merged from that point or would they uncross and continue on their separate paths again?

• Replies 20
• Created

#### Popular Days

I tend to agree with you that timelines, or universes, would have to cross. If there are an infinite number of them, you would think that some would touch. This is why I personally believe there has to be a way to access whichever timeline you want to if you can find a way to dinstinguish them. It's probably all about math. (I'm expecting about a half dozen people to tell me I'm wrong, but the truth is, nobody really knows for sure. All of this is theoretical, so nobody is wrong).

I picture thousands of bubbles touching eachother. They will always touch until they are destroyed. IMHO.

##### Share on other sites

I personally don't see any particular reason why they would have to intersect. I think it is entirely possible for different timeline/dimensions to be completely separate from each other without the advent of some form of technology. That being said, we don't know, anything is possible. I'm personally under the assumption that an individual can only cross timelines if they do in fact time travel. This leads to my assumption that a given universe only has a set amount of matter that cannot be destroyed, only manipulated.

##### Share on other sites

Everything intersects at one point because there is a point where everything is insync with one another. Whether it is at the very beginning of the very end, it will cross. Whether it stays that way is another matter all together.

##### Share on other sites

I have never pictured the time lines as a straight solid line, or actually being parallel, for that matter. I always assumed they touched here and there, crossed over one another, branched off in spots, and even closed off in some spots. I think of them as being very fluid and ever changing. I've often wondered if the spots they touch in are where we see "ghosts"...

##### Share on other sites

I have never pictured the time lines as a straight solid line, or actually being parallel, for that matter. I always assumed they touched here and there, crossed over one another, branched off in spots, and even closed off in some spots. I think of them as being very fluid and ever changing. I've often wondered if the spots they touch in are where we see "ghosts"...

This always seems to start a huge argument, but there is some evidence of multiple universes that I *think* may imply the universes are touching (note the cold spots). Again, this article usually causes an uproar. It upsets a lot of people.

##### Share on other sites

I have never pictured the time lines as a straight solid line, or actually being parallel, for that matter. I always assumed they touched here and there, crossed over one another, branched off in spots, and even closed off in some spots. I think of them as being very fluid and ever changing. I've often wondered if the spots they touch in are where we see "ghosts"...

I've actually had the same thought when it comes to paranormal activity. I believe there may be a strong possibility of that.

This always seems to start a huge argument, but there is some evidence of multiple universes that I *think* may imply the universes are touching (note the cold spots). Again, this article usually causes an uproar. It upsets a lot of people.

I noticed that they mentioned the Big Bang. Problem with that is they disproved the theory years ago. That may be why the arguing.

I don't know much about the idea of multiple universes, but I am trying to figure out what that has to do with time travel. Multiple universes and time travel are not the same thing.

##### Share on other sites

I've actually had the same thought when it comes to paranormal activity. I believe there may be a strong possibility of that.

I noticed that they mentioned the Big Bang. Problem with that is they disproved the theory years ago. That may be why the arguing.

I don't know much about the idea of multiple universes, but I am trying to figure out what that has to do with time travel. Multiple universes and time travel are not the same thing.

There is a theory that every time you time travel, you create a new universe. It's my own theory (I have little proof) that you can travel to other universes intentionally. Also, the creation of these parallel universes would prevent paradoxes in time travel. For instance, you can go back and kill your grandfather and nothing would happen because hypothetically, you're in a different universe aka timeline anyway. So, in some theories, multiple universes go hand in hand with time travel.

Here's a short video that may help explain.

##### Share on other sites

But, multiverses is still different from time travel. Multiverses would be (in a simplified explanation) a bunch of me's living in different lives and different possibilities but within the same time line. Their past, present, and future would be different except where they would cross over becoming the same from time to time. Time travel the same me living in different periods of time (if I were to only hop around in my own time line) but in the same universe. The only different possibilities would be from the point where I make a change forward but all past events would remain the same before the change.

##### Share on other sites

But, multiverses is still different from time travel. Multiverses would be (in a simplified explanation) a bunch of me's living in different lives and different possibilities but within the same time line. Their past, present, and future would be different except where they would cross over becoming the same from time to time. Time travel the same me living in different periods of time (if I were to only hop around in my own time line) but in the same universe. The only different possibilities would be from the point where I make a change forward but all past events would remain the same before the change.

Because universe = timeline in some theories. :)

##### Share on other sites

:p guess that is why I can't accept that because I don't believe that theory. I believe them to be two separate concepts.

##### Share on other sites

• 1 month later...

I reckon each time you travel, things change kind of like in The Time machine Alex tries to save Emma which he does but as he does not know what will happen after she dies each time he saves her and kind of mind boggling as well. Meddling with time can create other things to happen you don't have any control over, kind of like in Dragonballz Future Trunks travels to the present day before the androids awake and warns the fighters what will happen in three years and they train as well and goku survies his battle with the virus. The result of this is two weaker ones come first, who are able to drain energy but get beaten later on than the real ones awake but have a nicer personality and are made real stronger and don't hold back when they fight and don't even cause terror unlike the timeline Trunks is from, and Cell a creature comes as well who wants to absorb them to be strong. So the meddling was needed but it caused other changes to occur and the androids were hard to hit and kind of strange as the ones in his time were holding back and not using full power and he was able to land punches on them only they would attack at the same time.

##### Share on other sites

People talk about a parallel time lines but what they do not discuss is the possibility of those parallel time lines crossing. Eventually there would be crosses because the time lines would be in sync at that point. Question is, once they cross would they remain merged from that point or would they uncross and continue on their separate paths again?

It would be a bit silly to talk about parallel lines crossing. If they cross they are, by definition, not parallel.

##### Share on other sites

Maybe in the parallel universe I made good decisions instead of bad ones am in the alternative universe I am highly successful. And then when I cross over to that universe, my successful self is embarassed by my unsuccessful self :) On the other hand maybe in the alternative universe I actually made worse decisions.

Personally I do not think you can cross over to alternative universes, you can only spawn new ones.

##### Share on other sites

I don't think of a parallel universe so much as a straight line, I think it might be more of a wave, maybe like the wind. Waves that can intersect with our consciousness. Maybe that's why we see things like ghosts? Think of a multi dimensional graph, where we live on the xy axis and maybe the parallel universe is az or something, and there are areas that can inhabit the same area (space) but are not the definition of that area. I recall reading something once on what it would be like if something from the 5th dimension past thru our three dimensional world.

Suddenly I feel like Sheldon in the ball pit ~~~"It's a wave"~~~~

##### Share on other sites

I actually liked Doctor Who's interpretation of time, which is that it's like a rug. In my mind, the individual threads of the rug are the reality itself, and that they form the whole of the universe by weaving together and touching. They intersect at points, and there are spaces between them in others. I think that it would be possible to mathematically predict the crossing points in this case if so.

My other interpretation of this phenomena, is that at any point where timelines intersect, the timeline is identical or at the very, very least, similar. People or objects might cross into our timelines at these points without ever even knowing, which might explain other phenomena like the Mandela Effect. Other times, more rarely, the point where two reality cross may be nothing alike but have to cross in order to preserve the integrity of space around them.

##### Share on other sites

@Darby, there are times when a parallel line can be 'knocked' to the side and cross the line it is parallel to. This momentary connection is what I am referring to. Even in the beginning of an event can be the cross parallel (such as the moment of birth in a alternative dimension), they were one line then split into multiple lines that run along side one another parallel, but there was a moment when they were interconnected whether 'bumping' into one another or being one and the same line at one moment in time.

##### Share on other sites

If lines or surfaces are parallel, then they are side by side and have the same distance continuously between them. As soon as lines or surfaces cross over, touch etc, then they are no longer parallel and were NOT parallel in the first place.

##### Share on other sites

If lines or surfaces are parallel, then they are side by side and have the same distance continuously between them. As soon as lines or surfaces cross over, touch etc, then they are no longer parallel and were NOT parallel in the first place.

It's just a way of explaining the concept, and I would imagine anyone who seriously studies this subject agrees with you, but uses the inaccurate terminology to describe it to other people who are not so well informed. It's like trying to define the word 'is' without using the word 'is' to describe it. It has a solid meaning, but it is a pain to describe it.

##### Share on other sites

@Darby, there are times when a parallel line can be 'knocked' to the side and cross the line it is parallel to. This momentary connection is what I am referring to. Even in the beginning of an event can be the cross parallel (such as the moment of birth in a alternative dimension), they were one line then split into multiple lines that run along side one another parallel, but there was a moment when they were interconnected whether 'bumping' into one another or being one and the same line at one moment in time.

Aside from the problem with the definition of parallel we now have the problem of simultaneity. Part and parcel to Special Relativity is the fall of the idea of absolute simultaneity of events. Different observers traveling at differing velocities with respect to the observed event will not agree on when the event occurred.

We have another ill defined situation regarding these parallel "time lines". I believe that we mean world lines, not time lines. The terms are from Minkowski.

We haven't defined what we mean here. These world lines do represent separate universes. In one instance we have two (or more) universes that are created entirely indepentant from one another. They have zero commonality and have no chance of ever communicating with each other. They may not even share common laws of physics. In the other instance we might be talking about the Many Worlds Interpretation view of the collapse of the probability wave. In that interpretation of quantum mechanics an event occurs, the probability wave collapses and reality divides into as many outcomes as are covered by the probability. But those universes aren't "parallel". A graph of their world lines would show them to be on diverging hyperbolic curves. They start out with a different outcome for the event. Each of those universes then evolves on its own based on the outcome. In a very short time those universes look much like the first instance above - they no longer have any real commonalities. They share the same laws of physics but they do not communicate and the difference between worlds is not "blue eyes instead of green".

I'll give you an example to ponder that isn't parallel worlds but it does exemplify the effects of divergence.

In talking about time travel the question is asked "what would you change?" Invariably the answer tends to be "Kill Hitler" and avoid WWII. The war was a bit more complex than that but let's go along with the answer. We kill Hitler and actually avoid WWII. But during the war about 80 million people in all theaters of the war died from all causes, That's both military and civilian deaths.

So what do we do with the 80 million? Do you think that they would have a small or a rather significant effect on the evolution of the world? Given that they currently represent zero new marriages and births what would their effect be on the current population if we prevent WWII? WWII began sometime between 1931 (Japanese invasion of Manchuria) and 1936 (Spanish Revolution with German and Italian intervention) so it's been about 80 years and three plus generations. Would you even be here? Eighty million new folks means 80 million alternate choices for spouses by 1945. Add two more generations and that's another 160 to 200 million people... It's possible that none of us would exist.

You see my point? Divergence. By today in this time travel altered world we get that "seven degrees of separation" feeling and are unlikely to have much in the way of commonality with history as we know it. The two world lines are not parallel, they are hyperbolic and the angle is increasing with the passage of time.

(Yes - I'm aware that Karinthy's theory was six degrees of separation. I like seven because just one more step and *poof*. No more old world. :) )

• 1
##### Share on other sites

OK an example, lets see.... what would have become of the Americas and their indigenous peoples if the settlers had never came? They were less technologically advanced (though there is no denying they did have technological advancements of their own) as we are today, or would there have been a completely different advancement from those of the Europeans that brought guns and horses here? Is that a good enough example or direction to go?