10 thoughts on “The Butterfly Effect”

  1. >> …all of these stories share a central theme where traveling through time is a dangerous proposition that could destroy the very fabric of our reality. It’s called the butterfly effect.

    “The Butterfly Effect” has nothing to do with time travel. Science writers can sometimes be such idiots. Especially when they pretend what they are writing about is science.

    1. The “butterfly effect” is the chaos-theory notion of the tiny effect of a butterfly flapping its wings or not leading to huge effects over time and space. But I see where the conflation comes from. The classic time-travel disaster story is Bradbury’s “Sound of Thunder”, which depends on somebody stepping on a butterfly, which results in the same kind of chaotic change over time.

  2. So killing Lenin in 1917 wouldn’t change Russian history? That doesn’t sound right. Even if it doesn’t obliterate our “present” and replace it with a new version, it would at least create a split in the timeline and two subsequent versions of Earth prime.

  5. From the article:
    So, if we want to solve a really complex problem we can run it through a quantum computer and get all the answers at once rather than running it through a classical computer multiple times with different parameters to achieve diverse predictions when an outcome is uncertain.

    This description is not accurate. At least as far as quantum computers attempting to factor large composite numbers into their constituent primes are concerned. Which is a key problem in quantum cryptography. If fact you actually may have to “run it through” a quantum computer *multiple* times in order to get the correct answer. Because the way an answer is determined is by picking various points in time along spikes in the interference pattern generated when the problem is superimposed on the qubits in superposition. There is no guarantee that any particular maxima actually is the solution. You have to see how the qubits de-cohere into classical ones and zeros and then plug that solution into a classical computer to tell you if it is an answer or not. If not, you have to start over again from square one and try another maxima. The point is that this process is faster (logarithmic time) vs classical computer algorithms. But it is very much trial and error, at least as it exists today. It does much better when trying to detect a compromised secure channel.

    As far as time travel is concerned, I’m very much of the parallel universe branching school of though. In other words parallel universes exist along parallel timelines. You go back in time and change something in the past it has nothing to do with the timeline that created you. You’ve simply branched into another timeline where if you’ve kill your grandfather you don’t have a parallel existence in that timeline anymore. In fact now that you’ve branched you can’t go forward to where you did exist as a younger you.
    You’re very much like George Bailey. Be careful how you branch. OR there’s always the possibility time travel is impossible. Either way it doesn’t effect me on THIS timeline. I will always go back to the self-consistent timeline. If I don’t branch it in any significant way I can get back to where I am now. Quantum effects might play a minor role but if it were totally destabilizing, there’d be a contradiction to our own existence. Otherwise there’s no preference to a consistent classical state. To put in into Feynman terms: “It all washes out in the rinse.”

    FYI check out the movie: “Primer” IMHO one of the best on this subject. If I’m wearing an earphone with all the answers you’ll know time travel is real.

  6. Pretty silly article. Even if small changes like killing a butterfly don’t grow (much), major changes obviously have major effects. Killing Hitler will change a heck of a lot about WWII in ways we can’t possibly predict.
    Apples and oranges.

    1. At some points during WWII, British intelligence had plans to kill Hitler. Ultimately, they stopped because Hitler was such a terrible leader. Killing Hitler likely would not have ended the war. Instead, someone who was actually competent might have taken his place.

      The old time travel idea of killing Hitler before he rose to power likely would not have stopped the development of National Socialism. Indeed, the Nazi party existed before he joined. Had Hitler never existed, the conditions that caused the formation of the Nazis likely still would have existed, only to be headed by someone who likely would’ve been more effective. Hitler was a megalomaniac who believed he knew more than everyone else about everything (sounds like sometime Obama said), so he frequently overruled his generals and made disastrous decisions. With someone competent in charge, they might have won the war.

      1. Yes. I’ve always thought worst case scenario for the allies would be a leader who actually kept the non aggression pact with Stalin. Who knows how well Germany could have held France if it was busy on the eastern front.

Comments are closed.