The Circular Gate Paradox Let us hypothesize that on an Earth where no spacetime-jumping capability existed in the past, there lived a physicis (a regular human being with no special attributes featured in any science fiction works). This physicist successfully created a circular gate with time-jumping ability, which is placed with its axis perpendicular to the ground. The gate follows a specific rule: passing through it allows one to travel to the exact instant of the fifth second after the elapse of five seconds prior to entering the gate (this instant has no measurable value in any sense, and all subsequent references to an instant shall carry the same meaning). Before the gate’s successful creation, traversing it completely required a full second. Now, suppose the physicist enters the gate at the exact start of the second second after the gate’s completion; in that case, the physicist would undoubtedly return to the exact end of the third second before the gate’s creation. Then how many physicists exist at that instant in the past? Hypothesis: Two physicists exist—are they one future physicist and one past physicist, or two past physicists? (Hereinafter, the past physicist is referred to as the old physicist, and the future physicist as the new physicist.) Hypothesis: One new physicist and one old physicist exist. Has the new physicist aged an additional second? Hypothesis: The new physicist has aged one second. This implies the physicist’s age increased by one second even in a time-reversing environment, leading to two conclusions: The circular gate exists independently of time and possesses its own temporal framework. For the one second the physicist was passing through the gate, they decoupled from the macroscopic world’s temporal system and entered the gate’s temporal system, aging one second by the gate’s time. Yet the one second he aged did not disappear when he returned to the macroscopic world.This proves that the physicist’s time, the macroscopic world’s time and the gate’s time are mutually independent of one another. The physicist’s time and the macroscopic world’s time are mutually independent. In all existing theories of time, time is equitable to all entities in the objective world. This independence must therefore extend to the quark level or even smaller scales, rendering time meaningless for population and the objective world as a whole. 1.1.2 Hypothesis: The physicist has not aged one second. This means traversing the circular gate took no time in the macroscopic sense. However, prior to the gate being endowed with time-travel functionality, traversing it required a full second—this proves that the space inside the circular gate has vanished. For the physicist to objectively appear in the past world regardless of the traversal method, they must cross the spatial length that originally takes one second to traverse. This spatial length resides in either the past or the future version of the gate, and traversing it is an absolute necessity; otherwise, the only explanation is that the space inside the gate has disappeared from the objective world. 1.1.2. 1.1.2.1.Given that the space inside the gate has vanished, can the gate be moved at this point? If the gate can be moved, this indicates that spacetime is discontinuous. Otherwise, it is impossible to explain how a space with no measurable physical size yet possessing an observable spatial form can move freely within the continuous spatial fabric. 1.1.2.2. Hypothesis: The gate cannot be moved. Did the successfully constructed gate travel back in time with the physicist? 1.1.2.2.1 .Hypothesis: The gate traveled back in time with the physicist. Did the past version of the gate still exist at that instant? If the past gate no longer existed, this means the gate in the past world was replaced by the gate from the future world. Yet in the new physicist’s past, the successfully constructed gate never existed—which leads to two scenarios: （a）Parallel universes. If this is the case, true time travel did not occur. Furthermore, due to the continuity and objective wholeness of time, an infinite number of past physicists would be endlessly constructing circular gates and traveling to identical universes that differ only in the number of physicists present. In all existing theories of time, time is equitable to all objective universes, which means an infinite set of identical universes exists, varying merely in their number of physicists. If the physicist’s single time travel event caused the emergence of such parallel universes that differ only in the number of physicists, these universes would proliferate infinitely with the physicist’s original universe as the origin. Similarly, the number of new physicists would grow infinitely in tandem with the number of universes, following these proliferation rules: Universe proliferation rule: （n=1、2、3、4......） (1) Physicist proliferation rule: （n=1、2、3、4......） (2) Due to the wholeness and continuity of time, this proliferation would occur instantaneously. Even if the objective world contains an unobservably infinite expanse of space, the space of a single universe is finite. Inevitably, the a-th universe would become completely saturated with physicists, leading to its destruction. Yet the circular gate was successfully constructed, and the time travel in question constitutes a return to an instant in the past of the new physicist’s original universe. Would the number of new physicists therefore grow infinitely as mentioned earlier? 1.1.2.2.1.1. Hypothesis: Infinite growth does not occur, and only one new physicist exists. Does this new physicist have the memory of encountering himself at that moment? 1.1.2.2.1.1.1 Hypothesis: No such memory exists. Only the parallel universe theory can fully explain this scenario. 1.1.2.2.1.1.2 Hypothesis: Such a memory exists. Regardless of whether this memory was inherent to the new physicist or acquired after time travel, the experiment could not have been halted within a mere five seconds. If the machinery and all data, already on the verge of operating at their maximum capacity, suddenly met the requirements for time travel, the entire system would inevitably malfunction. This would certainly make it impossible for the old physicist to travel back to the same past as the new physicist. Yet the new physicist could not have constructed the gate in such a flawed manner; otherwise, the time travel posited at the very outset of this refutation would not have been possible. We may however hypothesize that after repairing the machinery, the old physicist would readjust the data to travel back to the same past that the new physicist returned to. Even so, the old physicist’s future would certainly not allow them to return to the same past as the new physicist, and the futures of the old physicist and the new physicist are inherently different. This scenario can only be explained in two ways: Parallel universes; Time advances with matter; when matter regresses, time reverses. Otherwise, the number of physicists would inevitably grow infinitely, filling the entire universe and in turn leading to its destruction. （b）. Time advances with matter; when time reverses, matter resets. 1.1.2.2.2 Hypothesis: The past gate still exists (hereinafter, the unfinished gate from the past is referred to as the old gate, and the successfully constructed gate from the future as the new gate). Yet since the gate is immovable, this would mean two nearly identical substances suddenly appearing in the same spatial position—a near impossibility in space. If such an event were to occur, nuclear fission and fusion would be highly likely to happen, which proves that a controllable time machine is fundamentally impossible to create. Should a slight spatial offset occur, making it impossible for the new gate and the old gate to overlap in theory, the same reasoning applied to the physicist earlier would hold true for the gate. Following this previous line of reasoning, two possibilities emerge: .The objective universe would be filled with an infinite number of new gates and new physicists, leading to its destruction. Time advances with matter; when matter regresses, time reverses. Hypothesis: Two old physicists exist. This means the new physicist has become an old physicist, and two identical physicists appear at the exact same moment (when the new physicist becomes an old physicist, their brain resets, and their memories are certainly erased). If the new gate does not travel back to the past, then in accordance with the wholeness and continuity of time, an infinite number of identical universes with different numbers of old physicists, as well as countless old physicists, would proliferate in the universe and the macroscopic world. The reasoning for this discussion remains consistent with that above. 2 Hypothesis: There is only one physicist—Is it the new physicist or the old physicist? 2.1 Hypothesis: It is the old physicist. This means the circular gate was not successfully constructed, and the premise for this discussion is not established. 2.2 Hypothesis: It is the new physicist. This means the old physicist has vanished at this moment. 2.2.1 Would the old physicist reappear after the new physicist travels back to the future? If yes, the parallel universe theory is the only explanation, regardless of whether the new physicist retains this memory. 2.2.2 If the old physicist does not reappear, would the new physicist who travels back to the future exist? 2.2.2.1 Hypothesis: The new physicist does not exist. This proves that a time machine cannot be successfully constructed in any sense. 2.2.2.2 Hypothesis: The new physicist exists. Yet the physicist inherently existed in the past temporal dimension; if only the physicist at that specific moment vanished, this would indicate that time is discontinuous and non-integral in nature. Extending this discontinuity and non-integrity to the scale of moments would render time essentially meaningless. 2.2.2.2.1 If all physicists in the past vanished, would his parents, family, friends and even the researchers around him still recognize him, or even exist at all? 2.2.2.2.1.1 Hypothesis: They still recognize him or exist. However, the physicist has vanished on the past timeline, while all individuals connected to him still exist or retain memories of him. This scenario can only be explained in three ways: （1）.Time itself has no continuity, wholeness or integrity and exists in a fragmented form. If this were the case, the degree of fragmentation would inevitably extend to the quark level or even smaller scales, rendering time meaningless not only for collectives and the macroscopic world, but also practically non-existent for individuals. （2）.The physicist’s time is independent of the time of the macroscopic world. If this independence exists, it would inevitably extend to the quark level or even smaller scales, depriving time of all meaning for collectives and the macroscopic world. (3).Time possesses a special property of existing and non-existing simultaneously. This, however, would fundamentally negate the wholeness and continuity of time, as well as the authenticity of the real world. For if time had such a property, it would mean time and the real world form an integral whole, rather than existing independently of the objective world. If this is the case, there can only be one conclusion: time reverses, and matter resets. 2.2.2.2.1.2 Hypothesis: They no longer recognize him or do not exist. Yet the physicist still exists in the future. This indicates that the physicist is completely independent of the macroscopic world—not only in terms of time, but even of space and all physical laws. However, it was stated at the very outset of this refutation that the physicist has been generalized as an ordinary individual. If such independence exists, it would inevitably extend to the quark level or even smaller scales, which would only mean that everything in the objective world has no connection to space, time and all physical laws. .3. Speculations Related to This Refutation In fact, as long as the physicist travels back in time, this act completely violates Einstein’s mass-energy conservation law—regardless of whether a physicist existed in the past, or whether either the past or the future physicist ceases to exist. This is because the mass and energy of any objective substance are changing at all times, and such an objective fact cannot be ignored by claiming that time is superior to the objective world, unless the objective facts themselves are flawed. Suppose time travel could disregard the law of mass-energy conservation and all other objective laws deemed permissible to violate. Yet every experiment involving such a machine is fraught with failures; even if some attempts succeed,Yet every experiment with such a machine is fraught with failures; even if some succeed, there will surely be extreme individuals bent on building dangerous time machines. In that case, as stated earlier, a tiny mistake would result in the annihilation of the universe. But with so many civilizations existing in the universe, could it be that not a single one has ever sought to explore the means of time travel? If achieved, time travel would not only serve as an ace in the hole for a species to ensure its survival, but also find applications in an overwhelming array of fields—medicine, chemistry, biology, history, and even rejuvenation—virtually covering all conceivable domains. Its success would propel a civilization's all-round development by leaps and bounds, as if it were riding a rocket. For instance, if someone is afflicted with an incurable disease, Then use instruments to determine exactly when the disease developed in them. We could then travel back to that instant, halt the disease's onset the moment it occurs (assuming the causal principle of time holds true and the disease is deemed inevitable), and provide long-term, all-round care for the patient. Even if the disease were to recur, the patient's lifespan would still be extended; for this specific illness, a cure would, in effect, have been found. If the individual is fated to contract the disease and succumb to it, we could travel back to the very start of their illness, observe its progression from the beginning until a treatment is discovered—repeating the attempt over and over again, and success would eventually be achieved. In this way, even if the patient ultimately passes away, a treatment for the disease would still be obtained. Even if a radical cure remains elusive, the invaluable experience gleaned from such prolonged research would be almost irreplaceable. Moreover, once the research succeeds, we could travel back to the period when the disease was still curable for that individual and bring the treatment to that era, which would amount to an explosive scientific breakthrough for the time. If we insist that bringing future research findings back to the past is bound to trigger destruction, then time machines themselves have no raison d'être. For why should we assume that a flawed future can be mended by traveling back in time, yet a prosperous future is inevitably doomed to ruin by the very same act? If such a thing could be pursued and created, how could any civilization fail to strive for it? Human civilization, in a mere few thousand years, has not only come to perceive time but also kept the discussion of time a highly popular topic. Countless planets in the universe have existed for billions of years, and it is impossible for all their civilizations to have developed only when their planets entered middle age. What’s more, humans have advanced from primitive society to the present in just a few thousand years; though we have made no tangible progress in time itself, we have never stopped exploring it—so much so that it has become a topic discussed by nearly everyone in modern times. This leaves only three possibilities: 1.No other civilizations can perceive time at all. 2.Human civilization on Earth is far ahead of all others. 3. no civilization has ever attempted to create such a thing, remaining merely in discussion—or no discussion at all.