Questions about time traveling

[Shewoman]

Danigar, suppose wizarding folk had gone back to save James and Lily. That would mean that Voldemort would have continued to grow stronger--there would have been no period of peace. More people than just the Potters would have been killed.

I don't think that Sirius could have been "saved" through the use of a Time-Turner. Remember Harry's conversation about ghosts with Nearly Headless Nick in "The Second War Begins," OotP. NHN tells Harry that Sirius would choose to "go on." Because of something that happens in DH that you haven't read yet, I think that Sirius' choice to "go on" or become a ghost was offered quickly (as would be the case for all magical folk at death). So Sirius couldn't have been "saved" because he had already gone on.

I do think that some events were changed in PoA. The trio doesn't set Buckbeak free on their first experience of that evening because they realize that Hagrid will be blamed for it. Harry and Hermione do it later, in their "Time-Turner" experience of that evening, in a way that doesn't implicate Hagrid (because he's with Dumbledore and the people from the Ministry the whole time). Since they had decided not to do it when they didn't have the Time-Turner, their use of that implement did change what would have otherwise happened. If they hadn't used it, they couldn't have freed Buckbeak in a manner that would keep Hagrid safe.

[Voldemorts8thHorcrux]

My impression of time is that it's set in stone. you can't "change" time, you can prevent future events from happening, like Sirius from getting the Dementor's kiss.

but they couldn't have anyways, like many people here have said, since all the time turners were destroyed.

[Scato]

Originally Posted by ArryGrotter

It is never used again because it is so dangerous (Just read 'Hermione's Secret' to understand).

This actually always bothered me a bit. I understand that time travel is very dangerous and therefore I don't understand why Hermione was allowed to do it. If time travel includes such great risks, why did McGonegall let one of her under-aged students take that risk - and take it everyday for a whole year - for something as insignificant as extra lessons.

I know that this wasn't insignificant to Hermione. But in the grand sceme of things and compared to the potential dangers of time travel, taking extra lessons doesn't seem worth the trouble. And I know Hermione was very mature and responsible for her age, but letting a 13-year-old travel time every day for a year without supervision seems a bit too risky to me. It especially seem very unlikely to me that someone like McGonegall would let one of her students do something so dangerous.

I don't know. All the warnings about time travel just seem a bit silly to me when an under-aged student is allowed to do it for fun (and I think in Hermione's case, taking extra lessons counts as "fun" )

[ComicBookWorm]

Originally Posted by Shewoman

I do think that some events were changed in PoA. The trio doesn't set Buckbeak free on their first experience of that evening because they realize that Hagrid will be blamed for it. Harry and Hermione do it later, in their "Time-Turner" experience of that evening, in a way that doesn't implicate Hagrid (because he's with Dumbledore and the people from the Ministry the whole time). Since they had decided not to do it when they didn't have the Time-Turner, their use of that implement did change what would have otherwise happened. If they hadn't used it, they couldn't have freed Buckbeak in a manner that would keep Hagrid safe.

Nothing was changed since the second pair of Hermione and Harry from the future do set Buckbeak free, moments after the first Hermione/Harry pair decided not to. Nothing was changed since, along with the first Hermione/Harry pair, we heard Hagrid's howl of joy when Buckbeak was found missing and Macnair's ax hitting the fence in anger. Although it was intended to mislead us into thinking that Buckbeak was dead. What was impacted was the ability of the future pair of Hermione/Harry to find a way to set Buckbeak free. But it wasn't a change, merely an opportunity to accomplish what they wanted to do.

[PrivetHedge]

Originally Posted by ComicBookWorm

Nothing was changed since the second pair of Hermione and Harry from the future do set Buckbeak free, moments after the first Hermione/Harry pair decided not to. Nothing was changed since, along with the first Hermione/Harry pair, we heard Hagrid's howl of joy when Buckbeak was found missing and Macnair's ax hitting the fence in anger. Although it was intended to mislead us into thinking that Buckbeak was dead. What was impacted was the ability of the future pair of Hermione/Harry to find a way to set Buckbeak free. But it wasn't a change, merely an opportunity to accomplish what they wanted to do.

Agreed. Events weren't changed at the end of POA. Harry and Hermione have a different perspective the second time they live through those three hours. That allows them to see that events were actually different than what they appeared to be the first time through. They didn't change events - they fulfilled them.

By the way - If Hermione needed to use a time-turner to take a 12 course schedule that year, do you think that means Percy was using a time-turner to take 12 courses his 5th year? Remember, it says at the end of Stone or the beginning of Chamber that Percy got 12 O.W.L.S.

[Shewoman]

Harry and Hermione could not have freed Buckbeak and kept Hagrid safe if they had not used the Time-Turner. If they hadn't had it (and I think their need of the T-T is the real reason why Hermione was allowed to use it to take so many classes that year), I think Buckbeak, Sirius, Harry, and Hermione would not have survived. Good thing they had it, then.

If nothing in the past can change, then why did McG tell Hermione about wizards killing time-traveling versions of themselves? Dumbledore seems to have reinforced this ("You know the dangers") when he told Hermione and Harry to use the T-T that night to save more than one innocent life (You-Must-Not-Be-Seen!).

[USNAGator91]

Originally Posted by Shewoman

Harry and Hermione could not have freed Buckbeak and kept Hagrid safe if they had not used the Time-Turner. If they hadn't had it (and I think their need of the T-T is the real reason why Hermione was allowed to use it to take so many classes that year), I think Buckbeak, Sirius, Harry, and Hermione would not have survived. Good thing they had it, then.

If nothing in the past can change, then why did McG tell Hermione about wizards killing time-traveling versions of themselves? Dumbledore seems to have reinforced this ("You know the dangers") when he told Hermione and Harry to use the T-T that night to save more than one innocent life (You-Must-Not-Be-Seen!).

AARRRGGGHH!!!! That just hurt my head. It seems pretty odd to me that the device was put to such mundane use (taking MORE classes?). Honestly, maybe it was just a plot device that JKR threw into the mix in order to account for the events in PoA. What else would explain the cavalier attitude towards time travel? And the very convenient excuse to throw away the time turners after their use?

Time travel, to me, is more a scientific phenomenon, rather than a mystical one, so I was surprised that it was used in this context.

[ComicBookWorm]

Originally Posted by Shewoman

If nothing in the past can change, then why did McG tell Hermione about wizards killing time-traveling versions of themselves? Dumbledore seems to have reinforced this ("You know the dangers") when he told Hermione and Harry to use the T-T that night to save more than one innocent life (You-Must-Not-Be-Seen!).

Your past self can kill your future self, and then your past self would only live the remaining time since your future self went back in time (and caught up to the time when your future self went back). But, by definition, you can't kill your past self or your future self wouldn't be alive to make the trip back in time in the first place.

Hermione's real danger was being found out since she would have been using the time turner illegally. Besides, I think that Jo was trying to crank up the suspense with comments about how dangerous it. She couldn't have written something like: "It's all turned out fine already, don't worry."

If we rely on what we saw happen, including the revelations about the misdirection concerning Buckbeak and Harry's patronus, then you can see that all the events had already occurred in the past before they decided to travel back. The only difference was that they (and the readers) don't know it was the future versions of Harry and Hermione responsible for those events. Clearly, Dumbledore figured out what was going on based on Buckbeak's disappearance and the stag patronus (which he already knew was Harry's) that saved them. So he gave them a little nudge to use the time turner.

The PoA movie showed how this works beautifully. It is the cleanest version of time travel I have ever seen. All the others require the entire world getting their memories and existences completely changed.

[Voldemorts8thHorcrux]

Originally Posted by PrivetHedge

Agreed. Events weren't changed at the end of POA. Harry and Hermione have a different perspective the second time they live through those three hours. That allows them to see that events were actually different than what they appeared to be the first time through. They didn't change events - they fulfilled them.

By the way - If Hermione needed to use a time-turner to take a 12 course schedule that year, do you think that means Percy was using a time-turner to take 12 courses his 5th year? Remember, it says at the end of Stone or the beginning of Chamber that Percy got 12 O.W.L.S.

Wow, great catch!!!!! Yeah, Percy may have also time traveled. He is like Hermione in many ways (when he was at school anyways). Perfect student, rule abiding, etc. It seems very plausible

About the thing about letting a student time travel. yes, it seems very risky, but Hermione would know she has a time turner, so she would avoid herself, and even if she saw her past or future self, she would be shocked, but she probably would know that it was her past or future self. Hope that makes sense. time travel is soooo confusing to explain . and besides, the whole thing about it being meaningless may have been part of the reason why she was allowed it. if it wouldn't have much effect besides letting a student understand magic better, and there is a good supply of time turners,the thought running through their heads must be "why not?".

[tuer3ssuci0]

Originally Posted by PrivetHedge

By the way - If Hermione needed to use a time-turner to take a 12 course schedule that year, do you think that means Percy was using a time-turner to take 12 courses his 5th year? Remember, it says at the end of Stone or the beginning of Chamber that Percy got 12 O.W.L.S.

Acutally, just because Percy got 12 O.W.Ls does not imply that that he was privy to the use of a time turner. I am very sure that any student may apply to take any O.W.L.; previous instruction for the course is not necessary. If you live in America, you could view the O.W.Ls as bery similiar to SAT Subject tests, except perhaps more important.

[Wright1771]

If time travel is so dangerous, why hasn't Prof. McGonagall ever given The Doctor a lecture?

[DeathlyH]

If loads of wizards killed their past selves, then how did they make it to the future in order to go back in time and kill thierself? Thinking about time travel makes my head spin...

Also, why didn't Dumbledore just go back in time and not bring Tom Riddle to Hogwarts? My theory is that he didn't know how Riddle would turn out, and from what happened in PoA we can deduce that when someone time-travels to the past, they are there twice, with their (then) present self, and thier traveling self. So Dumbledore can't possibly go back and leave Riddle at the orphanage forever bacause he didn't already do it. But that raises a question: If Harry had to save himself in order to go back and save himself three hours later, where was the point in time that Harry survived? What I mean is, how did past-Harry get saved by future-Harry if past-Harry wouldn't have made it without a Patronus? There's no point in time where Harry actually enables his past self to survive by traveling. The point is, time-traveling to save or kill yourself in the past or future is impossible, and creates a paradox. There's no way Harry could have possibly saved himself by going back so he could save himself so he could go back and save himself and.... You see? If the proper laws of physics were obeyed in PoA, Harry would have died. That's why, going into DH, I knew that no one would travel back to an event that happened in books 1-6, otherwise it already would have happened during that book. It all come together if you think about it long enough, doesn't it?

[WMLizard]

I have always thought that the time traveling was a weak aspect of the series. It brings up so many other questions, instances where it could have been used. Although part of me understands what other people are saying about not being able to go back and really change anything, there's still a part of me that says "wait, that doesn't make any sense!", because at some point a decision is made to go back in time, which means at some point there is an "original" stream before the first time the decision is made to go back in time...make any sense?

I mean, if you're Dumbledore and you know Time Turners exist, and it's the first war and you're on good terms with the Ministry...why not get a Turner, wait for an attack, then go back in time to when that attack occurred and take out Voldemort, or even just some of his Death Eaters? A few attacks like that and pretty soon Death Eaters would be frozen and scared to take action, or dead.

[Jayden555]

The Harry Potter series had a few inconsistencies but one of the most troubling is time-turners, and the fact that time-travel is possible and easy in the wizarding world (according to book 3). They even used it to save Buckbeak's life.

JK Rowling shows in this example that you can go back in time to change the past. However, Harry could have easily went back in time and prevented Sirius from dying, or his parents, or anyone. In fact, no bad thing should ever happen in the wizarding world because you can just go back and fix it.

Is anyone else bothered by this? Has JK Rowling commented on this in any inteviews?

[Chikibun]

I believe when one thinks on an issue such as Time Turners they ought to keep in mind this cardinal rule: Whatever happened, happened.

There is no changing of the past. The events of Prisoner of Azkaban show that anyone who decides to go back in time; their presence in the past always was and always would be.

The biggest supporter of this is the events of Buckbeak's "execution" he was meant to be killed. So, we know that Ron, Hermione and Harry left shortly after the event -was- to be carried out.

As they rushed away from Hagrid's Hut, for fear of hearing or witnessing the death of Buckbeak there were some things they were not privy to.

Buckbeak was being released at the moment that they rushed back to the castle. While Scabbers is attempting to escape Ron's pocket and they're stationary, they're able to hear the thud of the axe and Hagrid's crying.

At the time, they were lead to believe that they'd heard Hagrid's woe over Buckbeak's death. When really, Hagrid was crying out of joy because of Buckbeak's escape.

This supports the idea that Harry and Hermione didn't really alter the past. . their actions had already affected the "present time" of them leaving Hagrid's Hut. They were -always- their saving Buckbeak, when Harry and the others were nearly killed by the Dementor's, Harry was -always- on the other side of the lake waiting for their savior.

At the time, they just were not aware of it.

I think it's simply that there is no changing of the past in the Harry Potter universe that alters the future.

What they have done in the past, whether they know it or not, always was.

[RavenclawCO99]

Originally Posted by Jayden555

The Harry Potter series had a few inconsistencies but one of the most troubling is time-turners, and the fact that time-travel is possible and easy in the wizarding world (according to book 3). They even used it to save Buckbeak's life.

JK Rowling shows in this example that you can go back in time to change the past. However, Harry could have easily went back in time and prevented Sirius from dying, or his parents, or anyone. In fact, no bad thing should ever happen in the wizarding world because you can just go back and fix it.

Is anyone else bothered by this? Has JK Rowling commented on this in any inteviews?

Perhaps not so easily. The Time Turner works in increments of one hour. (Hermione turns the thing three times and she and Harry go back three hours.) So for all practical purposes, you probably couldn't go further back than earlier that same day.
Hermione goes so far as to mention that "awful things happen to wizards who meddle with time," implying that, although it may be possible to go back and 'change' things that have happened, there are potentially dire consequences for this and one cannot know what they all are. Hermione had the Time Turner so that she could do more classes, not change the past. Time Turners were probably meant primarily to study the nature of time, which is why the Department of Mysteries had them in the first place.
Also, Sirius' death occurred after the entire stock of Ministry Time Turner's had been smashed, so nobody could have gone back and saved him anyway. And even if they could, remember Hermione's warning: "We can't be seen." Sirius was killed in the middle of a battle involving over a dozen wizards. If a second Harry, or a second Hermione, or a second anybody had shown up mid-battle, the Harry, Hermione, or whoever from the present would probably have thought some strange Dark magic was going on and who knows what would then have befallen the person from the future, fulfilling Hermione's warning to Harry mentioned in the above paragraph.

[Gwendolen]

Originally Posted by Jayden555

JK Rowling shows in this example that you can go back in time to change the past. However, Harry could have easily went back in time and prevented Sirius from dying, or his parents, or anyone. In fact, no bad thing should ever happen in the wizarding world because you can just go back and fix it.

Although the time turner goes back in time, it can only be used to fix something that is about to go wrong, not to fix something that already happened.

If Dumbledore had thought of using the time turner after Buckbeak was dead, it would have been too late to rescue him. Hermione could only return and watch him die again. Similarly after Sirius died, or after the Potter's died, it was too late to go back and save them. If they were going to be saved they would never have died in the first place.

In most cases, if someone knew beforehand when and where someone was going to die they could prevent it without the aid of a time turner. The time turner would only be useful in circumstances where something bad was about to happen and you needed to duplicate yourself to stop it happening.

I'm not sure what happens to free will during the loop, that's the part that makes my head hurt. Past Harry has to get to the point where he uses the time turner, and future Harry has to do what past Harry remembers seeing him do.

[Jacobini]

I hadn't thought of DeathlyH's contribution before, that it would be impossible to save oneself from death because there needs to be an initial event. However, then with this interesting notion of time, perhaps future Harry saving past Harry is always present in a constant loop.

This is what I wanted to get to, time travel would cause loops! As seen PoA, Time-Travelling Harry and Hermione enter the hospital wing and speak to Dumbledore just as the past (or is it future?) Time-Travelling Harry and Hermione leave to fulfill the loop once more.
Although I, contrary to some of you on the forum, loved JK Rowling's use of time travel (and I definitely believe that the past has been changed so that it would not be noticeable to anyone living in its presence, so to speak).

But this loop thing really bugs me, because wouldn't that just produce an endless amount of Time-Travelling Harrys and Hermiones who go back in time to save Sirius and Buckbeak and end up in the hospital wing just as the next pair of Time-Travelling Harrys and Hermiones leave.... well, it sounds like waaay too many reincarnations to keep track of, while the reader follows the original Time-Travelling Harry and Hermione as they continue through the book.... does this sort of make sense or have I got myself stuck in a thinking loop?

[Jayden555]

It seems that everyone here is arguing that the events in PoA made sense because they didn't actually change anything, it already happened that way. However, this argument (to me at least) doesn't make sense. If they hadn't intervened, things would have happened very differently (Sirius and buckbeak wouldn't still be alive). Thus, by intervening, they are causing change.

Technically, they could have chosen not to do it.
This is confusing for this reason: if they hadn't stopped Buckbeak from being killed, then who would have? Because we already know that someone did.

And another more confusing reason: if they hadn't chosen to go back in time...that means that Harry and Hermione could be dead. Which means that the never even made it to the present (in the hospital wing) which means that they never even could have made the choice whether or not to go back in time... This whole thing is very confusing.

[OldMotherCrow]

Originally Posted by Jayden555

It seems that everyone here is arguing that the events in PoA made sense because they didn't actually change anything, it already happened that way. However, this argument (to me at least) doesn't make sense. If they hadn't intervened, things would have happened very differently (Sirius and buckbeak wouldn't still be alive). Thus, by intervening, they are causing change.

I agree. I think the whole idea that people only ever use Time Turners to change things that they already used Time Turners to change doesn't make sense, because what's stopping someone from doing an experiment where they decide to go back in time and change something they know hasn't been changed? What if they see themselves using the Time Turner and decide not to afterall based on the fact that they used a Time Turner?

I think we can know that time loops in the Harry Potter universe don't need to be seemless, and alternate realities can exist with time travel, because McGonagall had told Hermione about cases where time-travelling wizards killed their past selves by accident. That creates a situation where the time traveller remembers a reality that was quite different from the one that exists. Things did change, as they could not always exist like they were in the reality the wizard was in before they decided to time travel; the dead wizard would not be deciding to use the Time Turner, but his living future self would remember being alive and using it. I think in unsuccessful uses such as that the different timelines don't resolve into one and create a seemless loop, but when everything goes well the timelines resolve into one, so it just seems like there is only one reality in the cases where time travel works smoothly.

And another more confusing reason: if they hadn't chosen to go back in time...that means that Harry and Hermione could be dead. Which means that the never even made it to the present (in the hospital wing) which means that they never even could have made the choice whether or not to go back in time... This whole thing is very confusing.

I think the probable explanation is that they wouldn't have died in whatever scenario that would have played out without the Time Turner. I think the time travel changed a lot of little things from the get go, and the changes would have snowballed over time, so it is hard to predict what would have happened in that alternative timestream. The first thing they did when they timed travelled was influence their past selves' actions, by delaying them in the entrance hall. Hard to know what those few extra seconds would have changed in the conversations they had, their timing on finding Pettigrew, or looking out the window and seeing the execution party approach, etc.