Forum: Story Discussion and Feedback

But can you not make hydrogen from water? If you had a device that could extract the hydrogen and then consume it. Just because we have not mastered it, doesn't mean that in an alternate timeline, it's not possible...

solar, wind

Solar and wind are very variable and we don't currently have the means to store any excess - the UK pays generators to switch off wind generators when there's too much for example. It would be wonderful if that excess could be 'stored' by producing hydrogen.

AJ

I think one that often perturbs me is that they tend to completely ignore causality.

Which is where this whole separate timeline nonsense comes in. One theory being about branches and you never actually return to your original timeline or that when you jump forward in time, you go back to your original timeline, but the one you altered diverges on it's own without you etc etc.

Which is where this whole separate timeline nonsense comes in.

The 'multiverse' isn't nonsense. See, e.g.:

The Case for Parallel Universes

What is multiverse theory?

Here's Why We Might Live in a Multiverse

So 'alternate timelines' actually conform to modern theoretical physics.

That's (to some extent) a feature, rather than a bug, for do-overs. Since the character is (presumably) not returning to the future (except day-by-day), they're free to alter the past. Of course, the more they alter the past, the less their knowledge of events in the future applies.

One big question is: how much do they notice (or care) about unexpected, unplanned divergences?

Another question is: how big is the butterfly effect? We have no true empirical evidence for that. My guess is that it's a slow burn, for the most part. Very small changes are generally (but not always) localized or swamped out.

With the example of the friend and drunk driver, it's a much bigger issue. The friend cannot help but make changes left and right. The question is: how noticeable are the effect of those changes? There's a ripple effect through housing, employment, all of those things, but those might not ever result in changes that the MC can see. The friend's actions are clearly visible, on the other hand.

Similarly, what happens with the drunk driver is a mystery. Does the MC even know who the drunk driver is? Will they ever notice the drunk driver killing someone else? What if the person the drunk driver kills is a bad guy? Does the whole thing present itself as something horrible never happening?

Or, does the drunk driver die in a one-car accident, which of course has its own small ripple effects but barely disturbs the timeline at all? Is the reason the horrible thing never happens instead that someone never took the job that caused them to go postal, since the living friend displaced a string of people including putting someone more suited to it in that job?

And, is the horrible thing something the MC even remembered in the first place, or are they blissfully unaware that they saved lives and improved the world in that particular case?

The kind of change noted up thread (saving a friend from a drunk driver) will have some on going ripples, but producing changes big enough to get noted by historians is doubtful.

The problem with that statement is that the 'historians' have to know the original AND the altered timeline in order to make that assumption, and that is all it is, an assumption.

And it's the same with the 'course correction' allegory. In order to know if it's true or not, you have to know the 'bigger picture' and all possible permutations (not going to happen).

Like I said in an earlier post, it depends on the friend. None of us know what's in store for us in the future. That friend might appear inconsequential to you now, but what happens if they spawn a child that isn't inconsequential?

We all have it in us to change destiny. Just because we don't know that, does not change the fact. It could be anything from just a supportive word when a colleague is feeling vulnerable and it stops them committing suicide, and they turn their life around, marry and one of their offspring creates a cure for cancer or creates the math that makes light-speed travel through space possible... Who knows?

But this whole 'timeline is a river that corrects itself' idea is just.... Well, lets just say that I don't agree with it and leave it at that.... LOL

The kind of change noted up thread (saving a friend from a drunk driver) will have some on going ripples, but producing changes big enough to get noted by historians is doubtful.

I would never mean to imply that "historians" would notice. But it would be very likely that the main character would.

I do have a long one that is sitting in my "someday" folder, which is mostly outlines that I hope to write someday. And in it he eventually meets his wife from his first time through. Notices her life is not that great compared to the first time when they were together, so tries to help her out in ways that does not connect back to him. Primarily by arranging her to get an anonymous grant so she can go to school and get her dream job instead of working endless dead end jobs as she was when he meets her again.

Mostly, they would be noticed in people and events he influences. People he met the first time that he would not in the second being the most likely.

Or in many, where the main character becomes a kind of "wunderkinder" in say business. Invents a better widget because they know it is invented in the future so they do it themselves. But what happens to the original companies?

Go back to 1975, and "invent" a flashlight with anodized aluminum with a variable focus beam. All well and good, but what happens to Tony Magilica and the "Maglite company? Do they just fade away, or then invent something else?

But the point is that the MC would notice many of the changes. Even if ultimately they make little to no difference other than in their own little world.

As to the MC, he would notice impacts of his friend's survival, but why would he notice changes to the drunk driver's life or other potential victims?

Because unless stopped, they might do even more damage. Say instead of getting arrested and put in jail for the first, they kill five children (including a relative) when they plow through a school crossing a month later.

One author I always recommend when it comes to Time Travel stories is Harry Turtledove. He actually does take this kind of thing into account, and it is interesting to see how he extrapolates them into the stories. Like one where the Germans were on the winning side in WWI. So later an almost insignificant corporal from Austria pops up and is quickly dismissed as a lunatic.

One big question is: how much do they notice (or care) about unexpected, unplanned divergences?

Another question is: how big is the butterfly effect? We have no true empirical evidence for that. My guess is that it's a slow burn, for the most part. Very small changes are generally (but not always) localized or swamped out.

Well, in mine I threw in one that was major, but had no apparent relation to the main character. That was the Iran hostages being killed in an Iraqi air strike instead of being released 333 days later. Big enough to be noticed, and to show to the reader that not everything would be the same as before.

And yes, I agree that most changes would be minimal. But they would still happen, especially as they started to purposefully alter things.

But very few ever address that at all. The closest I can think of is "Doing It All Over" by Al Steiner. Which had "fate" try to push back if he tried to deviate things too much. He would try to put people on a different path, only to have "something" resist him and try to keep them on the path they were destined to follow.

I think one that often perturbs me is that they tend to completely ignore causality.

In other words, the "butterfly effect". Where their appearing (normally in the past) has no other effect, and they can make changes all over the place and it never seems to effect anything else. The main character steps up and saves a friend from being killed by a drunk driver, life goes on as it had before but without their friend dying.

The universe doesn't care.

Preventing the assassination of Abraham Lincoln would almost certainly have significant effects. POTUS Lincoln, General Grant, and other key leaders were crafting a reconciliation with the states and people of the former CSA.

Reconstruction and other harsh measures resulted in backlashes such as the KKK and Jim Crow laws.

It is likely that former slaves would not have enjoyed the brief period of liberties, even "privileges" such as being elected to political offices in the south. More may have been returned to Africa, most likely Liberia. Probably even more former slaves would have left the south. POTUS Lincoln would not be a martyr, and would have been blamed for whatever frictions occurred 1866 to 1869 and beyond. POTUS Johnson would not have been impeached.

Your friend is unlikely to effect the world, or history. Important to their friends and family, but just one of billions.

If Trotsky had lead the Soviet Union instead of Stalin, there would have been some differences. However, it is extremely likely that Germany would still have invaded in 1941, and the Allies would have won in 1945. Perhaps there would not have been a "Cold War" there would still have been a competition of systems.

I believe the Soviet Union would have still eventually collapsed. Their economic and bureaucratic systems are not viable.

In Washington State we have Senator Patty Murray, in 30 years she has sponsored 6 pieces of legislation, none of any particular importance. A puppet that voted in accordance with democrat party leadership would produce identical results. Anyone from the D Party would be elected in her place. The junior Senator is equally a "gray man" and replaceable.

Few are the people who really effect history.

Throw a rock in a river and you will cause some ripples, but few people will notice, and miles later the water will reach the ocean and there will be no difference.

Few are the people who really effect history.

I definitely cannot agree to that statement. What if Klara Polzl never existed, what if Pauline Koch never existed? I could go on and on and list thousands of women who most definitely effected history.

You can throw as many rocks as you like into water and think that it makes no difference, but that's only because you fail to understand cause and effect and you also fail to understand the enormity of existence. You throw a rock in a pool, make a grand statement that the ripples will not reach the other side and that's 'history'. Meanwhile, at the bottom of the lake, your rock lands on a flatfish/crustacean/whatever, killing it. That creature was going to be one of the few creatures that was going to survive the coming man made apocalypse and over a period of millennia, evolve into another tool using, space going intelligent lifeform. You have just killed it and therefore an entire intellectual species.

With that in mind, has your 'existence' made no difference? You only think decisions make no difference because you can't comprehend the outcome of your decision. I doubt anyone can.

Your friend is unlikely to effect the world

How can you categorically state that? That friend might create a medicine that extends life three fold, or their child might do so, Or that friend might birth the most evil individual in the entire world resulting in the destruction of humanity.

You don't know that, we don't know that. Hence the whole point of the 'butterfly effect'. Ignorance is bliss, but it does lead to ridicule.

Few are the people who really effect history.

Throw a rock in a river and you will cause some ripples, but few people will notice, and miles later the water will reach the ocean and there will be no difference.

We tend to remember individual acts such as the murder of Julius Caesar, but overall they have very little effect on how the world develops.

Germany lost the Second World War but it didn't prevent a German Empire holding dominion over Europe, only it was achieved economically rather than militarily. It's the power of statistics and probability - if the time has come for something to happen, one way or another it will.

AJ

if the time has come for something to happen, one way or another it will.

I think it depends a great deal on what the 'something' is. Of course, one of the issues (reiterating a comment from earlier) is that we have no true empirical evidence nor any way to create any. We absolutely have evidence that apparently 'simple' systems can exhibit sensitive dependence on initial conditions, but that's not the same.

Most likely, if Edison had died in infancy, we would still have light bulbs. That doesn't mean that history would have gone the same way, though. Perhaps Tesla would've won the argument about how to distribute power, as a very simple 'for instance'.

If any particular inventor had died early, we would still have the steam engine. If Einstein had died early, most likely someone would have proposed relativity.

On the other hand, suppose a 10-year difference in the development of atomic physics in the early 20th century. Does World War II effectively end with twin atomic detonations over Japan? Or do we end the war in another way, then develop atomic weapons during the Cold War? If so, with them never having been used in conflict, does the next war open with a series of atomic blasts?

Literature is a much bigger issue. Drop a major creator here or there and perhaps nothing fills the gap, which (in turn) might mean an entire genre stagnates or develops entirely differently, which might mean large numbers of people aren't employed in that area but rather in another.

At the risk of offending the truly faithful, imagine a world where Christ never existed (obviously that's impossible if Christ was the Messiah and the Son of God :)) - or, to blaspheme even more, imagine that one or more of the people who created the tales of Christ we know as the New Testament never existed. Suppose, for instance, that Paul died, or alternately stayed Saul of Tarsus. How much do you have to change to alter the course of nations, the shape of wars, the character of the medieval Church, and so forth?

Just as for instance, suppose the people who created the 'time has come for something to happen' Messiah story were either staunch pacifists or advocates of unrestricted violent forced conversion. Either change shoves the world in very different directions from the mixed heritage we have now.

Switching to current events, how much different are events if Reagan was actually assassinated and Bush Sr. became President in 1981 instead of 1988? Who wins in 1984? Do we have a significantly different set of Supreme Court justices? Does Bush Sr - politically a very different sort of fellow - capitalize on events in the Soviet Union in the same way? Better? Worse?

My guess is that the odds are that our little corner of the universe would be significantly different in those cases, notwithstanding that I also would guess that many of those differences are unpredictable and unknowable, barring some way of peering into other corners of the multiverse.

True enough on the Edison point - my own screw-up.

With respect to Paul, I think we agree. I was taking aim with the claim that 'if the time has come for something to happen, one way or another it will'. Even if that's true (and I'm not sure it is), how many things happen, and when they happen (within limits), can change the course of history just as surely as whether they happen at all.

One of the questions is what makes someone 'historically significant'. I'm not sure there's an easy answer to that. Joe Schmoe next door may be historically insignificant, but under the right conditions, he might turn into the next Ted Kaczinski. Change the conditions, add another mad bomber.

With the right Joe Schmoe, perhaps you get an even-more-lethal Timothy McVeigh, or an analogue to Osama bin Ladin.

Yes, most of the time, you just get a slightly different Joe Schmoe, who's still historically insignificant, but if someone is changing things left and right, you have a lot of Joe Schmoes for the universe to roll dice with.

With the right Joe Schmoe, perhaps you get an even-more-lethal Timothy McVeigh, or an analogue to Osama bin Ladin.

"Replay" by Ken Grimwood was like that. In it the main character manipulated events, and found out that sometimes it made no difference (he set up LHO to be captured by the police before 22 November 1963), but JFK was killed anyways. And other events turned out to be even worse than the first time.

time travel only works in forward mode. The physicists figured that out already.

Er, no.

How traveling back in time is permitted by Einstein's physics

Travel back in time could be possible — Scientists discover negative-time light

A Physicist Says 'Paradox-Free' Time Travel Is Theoretically Possible

I'm trying to 'play fair' with memories, sticking to major sports games that 'non-sports' people might reasonably remember (especially if there's a local or family connection), dates that can be reasonably predicted, or events that can be affected by knowing the approximate time.

For instance, a friend's dad dies during a summer. Given that it's high school, and there are a lot of contextual clues, it's very easy to figure out which summer it had to be. You don't necessarily need the date in order to try to do something about it.

Same with Challenger. Even if you can't remember the year, all you have to do is remember 'Teacher in Space'. Once there start being 'Teacher in Space' articles, you're set.

Remembering when an IPO happened might make sense if you were close to the industry. Also, IPOs tend to have plenty of warning.

There are a bunch of things I've not written because it doesn't feel plausible to me that it'll be remembered in sufficient detail. Or I write it as a 'missed opportunity'. The Lebanon Marine Barracks Bombing and Union Carbide / Bhopal are examples. Remembering that those things happened is entirely plausible. Remembering when, in enough detail to even have a chance of affecting them, isn't.

The other thing to remember is that the do-over character has plausibly 'unlimited' time, once the story has gotten very far. My MC 'comes back' in August 1980. The first major plot point based on knowing a specific event is in December. So, he's had almost five months with quite a lot of time to ponder and dredge up old memories.

Combine that with, say, paying attention to sports enough to say 'Hmm, these two teams might be in the Super Bowl. Do I have enough context to reasonably predict the winner?' and you have a plan of action.

But you can't just keep doing that or it gets nuts fast.

Unless you're in one of those do-overs, of course. In that case, you buy the stock, thus over-inflating Bill's ego, and he falls flat on his face shortly thereafter.

Could happen :)

At some point, you would have to make the mental shift from 'I know these things' to 'I think there is solid odd of this happening' to 'Eh, I'd bet on it, but it's no sure thing' to 'Hell if I know what happens next.'

My thinking on this was 'When was that conversation with Bill Gates?' If he was selling stock prior to the IPO and you bought some, that might count as a not-so-small, not-so-random event. If you just bought 100 shares at the IPO, sure, that's a 'small random event', but no random person debating 100 shares was spending 2 hours talking to Bill at the time of the IPO (or, at least, I think not - maybe I'm wrong, and there's a great story there).

The mental shift I was talking about is more along the lines of where your actions are not small or random, but might directly affect the success of a business. Not butterfly-effect range, in other words. You might still think it will do great, but you should be able to mentally step back and acknowledge that you could have broken something subtle that will bite you in due course.

I might be going through this right now :) with characters who, on paper, following our-universe wealth projections, are in a great place, but whose wealth is mostly 'on paper' and who are potentially in a position to break the very things where their serious wealth resides. Are they wealthy? Potentially wealthy? Just 'we've got a good chance at being wealthy, but life could suck and we'd be out a bunch of money instead?'

Windows 1.0 was not a very impressive thing, so I'm not surprised that they weren't. They survived it, anyway :)

If an agency is powerful enough to arrange a do-over, isn't it likely that it will be powerful enough to cope with the consequences?

I don't buy the "I'm an all-powerful god but I'm not allowed to intervene directly" trope.

AJ

In a number of do-overs, the agent is unknown in one way or another. Some are nearly deist in nature (which is, I suppose, what you don't buy): the agent intervenes once, but never again. But, in others, the mechanism is opaque. If one, say, rubs Aladdin's Lamp and gets a do-over, but the lamp doesn't show up in the do-over, that's probably it. You had your wish - now make it work. The Genie is probably not out there trying to figure out what your next two wishes are. He's outta there, off to deal with the next owner of the lamp. You gave it up; you're out of the picture.

And, in many ways (something my characters struggle with, philosophically), an 'active' agent may be worse. Do you really want to live in a universe where you have a strong suspicion that the Powers That Be are meddling on your behalf and will make sure everything works out well for you? Perhaps it would be nice, but it robs you of a great deal of agency in the process.

Are you going to eventually explain the motivation of the agent in VOAT?

AJ

Never say never, but I have no plans to at this point.

By analogy, 'Groundhog Day'. Explaining why Phil winds up in a time loop wouldn't make the story stronger. Danny Rubin, the original writer, tried and concluded that it would make the story weaker, and also that not knowing makes Phil more relatable. Quoting him, 'none of us knows exactly how we got stuck here either.'

I have no particular need of showing the agent, nor even of definitively saying there is an agent. It doesn't strengthen the story (or, at least, so far it doesn't). It could be some natural process that's not understood. So, unless I see a place where providing an agent/reason/etc actually makes the story stronger, I won't.