Category Archives: Time Travel

A bright UFO hovering in the night sky, shining a beam of light down onto trees below.

Is There Any Scientific Evidence UFO’s Are Real?

Categories, Physics, Time Travel, Universe Mysteries, , ,

Internet searches for the keyword acronym “UFO” (unidentified flying object) are among the most popular on the Internet. According to Google, there are five million global searches per month for the keyword acronym “UFO”(without the quotes).

Let us start with a little background. Surprisingly, the United States Air Force (USAF) officially created the acronym “UFO” in 1953. Their intent was to replace the more popular phrases such as “flying saucers” and “flying discs” because of the variety of shapes reported. In their official statement, the United States Air Force defined the term UFO as “any airborne object which, by performance, aerodynamic characteristics, or unusual features, does not conform to any presently known aircraft or missile type, or which cannot be positively identified as a familiar object.”

The phenomena, namely UFO sightings, are worldwide. Various governments and civilian committees have studied them. The conclusions reached by the various organizations that have studied them vary significantly. Some conclude UFOs do not represent a threat and are of no scientific value (see, e.g., 1953 CIA Robertson Panel, USAF Project Blue Book, Condon Committee). Others conclude the exact opposite (see, e.g., 1999 French COMETA study, 1948 USAF Estimate of the Situation, Sturrock Panel).

Given the sheer volume of unexplained sightings by credible witnesses, including military, police, and civilian witnesses, there is little doubt that the UFO phenomenon is real and worldwide, and for the most part, there is no widely accepted public or scientific explanation of what they are or what their intentions might be.

Three popular speculations regarding UFOs are:

  1. They are future generations of humans who have mastered the science of time travel, and they are coming back either to observe us or to carry out other intentions.
  2. They are technologically advanced aliens from another planet who have mastered the science of time travel, and they are coming here either to observe us or to carry out other intentions.
  3. They are secret government (United States or any government) experimental spacecraft, and by some accounts they are reverse engineered from advanced alien spacecraft in the government’s possession.

In my estimation, the ninety-page 1999 French COMETA study (the English translation stands for“Committee for In-Depth Studies”) is the most authoritative source of UFO information and provides a thoughtful, balanced view. Here are the facts that led me to this position:

  • The COMETAmembership consisted of an independent group of mostly former “auditors” (i.e., defense and intelligence analysts) at the Institute of Advanced Studies for National Defense, or IHEDN, a high-level French military think tank, and by various other highly qualified experts. The independence of the group lends credence that the findings and conclusions would not be censored.
  • The French government did not sponsor it. This lends credence that the COMETA members were objective and not politically guided.
  • The COMETA study was carried out over several years. This lends credence that the COMETA study is a thorough account of UFO phenomena, not a hastily put out government press release.

The 1999 COMETA study concluded:

  1. About 5% of the UFO cases studied were inexplicable.
  2. The best hypothesis to explain them was the extraterrestrial hypothesis (ETH), but they acknowledged this is not the only possible hypothesis.
  3. The authors accused the US government of engaging in a massive cover-up of UFO evidence.

According to the 1999 COMETA study, a small but significant percentage of UFOs are likely of extraterrestrial origin. You will find an English translation of the 1999 COMETAstudy at this website address: https://www.ufoevidence.org/newsite/files/COMETA_part2.pdf.

Based on the above information, the answer to the subject question (i.e., Is There Any Scientific Evidence UFO’s Are Real?) is no. However, the COMETA study goes a long way in establishing UFO’s as a phenomena worthy of scientific study.

A surreal, glowing clock surrounded by swirling golden particles and abstract light patterns in a dark background.

Can Time Travel Be Used as a Weapon?

Categories, Physics, Technology, Threats to Humankind, Time Travel, , ,

Time travel will be the ultimate weapon. With it, any nation can write its own history, assure its dominance, and rule the world. However, having the ultimate weapon also carries the ultimate responsibility. How it is used will determine the fate of humankind. These are not just idle words. This world, our Earth, is doomed to end. Our sun will eventually die in about five billion years. Even if we travel to another Earth-like planet light-years away, humankind is doomed. The universe grows colder each second as the galaxies accelerate away from one another faster than the speed of light. The temperature in space, away from heat sources like our sun, is only about 3 degrees Kelvin (water freezes at 273 Kelvin) due to the remnant heat of the big bang, known as the cosmic microwave background. As the universe’s acceleration expands, eventually the cosmic microwave background will disperse, and the temperature of the universe will approach absolute zero (-273 degrees Kelvin). Our galaxy, and all those in our universe, will eventually succumb to the entropy apocalypse (i.e., “heat death”) in a universe that has become barren and cold. If there is any hope, it lies in the technologies of time travel. Will we need to use a traversable wormhole to travel to a new (parallel) universe? Will we need to use a matter-antimatter spacecraft to be able to traverse beyond this universe to another?

I believe the fate of humankind and the existence of the universe are more fragile than most of us think. If the secrets of time travel are acquired by more than one nation, then writing history will become a war between nations. The fabric of spacetime itself may become compromised, hastening doomsday. Would it be possible to rip the fabric of spacetime beyond a point that the arrow of time becomes so twisted that time itself is no longer viable? I do not write these words to spin a scary ghost story. To my mind, these are real dangers. Controlling nuclear weapons has proved difficult, but to date humankind has succeeded. Since Fat Man, the last atomic bomb of World War II, was detonated above the city of Nagasaki, there has been no nuclear weapon detonated in anger. It became obvious, as nations like the former Soviet Union acquired nuclear weapons, that a nuclear exchange would have no winners. The phrase “nuclear deterrence” became military doctrine. No nation dared use its nuclear weapons for fear of reprisal and total annihilation.

What about time travel? It is the ultimate weapon, and we do not know the consequences regarding its application. To most of humankind, time travel is not a weapon. It is thought of a just another scientific frontier. However, once we cross the time border, there may be no return, no do-over. The first human time travel event may be our last. We have no idea of the real consequences that may ensue.

Rarely does regulation keep pace with technology. The Internet is an example of technology that outpaced the legal system by years. It is still largely a gray area. If time travel is allowed to outpace regulation, we will have a situation akin to a lighted match in a room filled with gasoline. Just one wrong move and the world as we know it may be lost forever. Regulating time travel ahead of enabling time travel is essential. Time travel represents humankind’s most challenging technology, from every viewpoint imaginable.

What regulations are necessary? I have concluded they need to be simple, like the nuclear deterrence rule (about thirteen words), and not like the US tax code (five million words). When you think about it, the rule of nuclear deterrence is simple: “If you use nuclear weapons against us, we will retaliate, assuring mutual destruction.” That one simple rule has kept World War III from happening. Is there a similar simple rule for time travel?

I think there is one commonsense rule regarding time travel that would assure greater safety for all involved parties. I term the rule “preserve the world line.” Why this one simple rule?

Altering the world line (i.e., the path that all reality takes in four-dimensional spacetime) may lead to ruination. We have no idea what changes might result if the world line is disrupted, and the consequences could be serious, even disastrous.

The preserve the world line rule is akin to avoiding the “butterfly effect.” This phrase was popularized in the 2004 film The Butterfly Effect, with the now famous line: “It has been said that something as small as the flutter of a butterfly’s wing can ultimately cause a typhoon halfway around the world.” Although the line is from a fictional film, the science behind it is chaos theory, which asserts there is a sensitive dependence on the initial conditions of a system that could result in a significant change in the system’s future state. Edward Lorenz, American mathematician, meteorologist, and a pioneer of chaos theory, coined the phrase “butterfly effect.” For example, the average global temperature has risen about one degree Fahrenheit during the last one hundred years. This small one-degree change has caused the sea levels around the world to rise about one foot during the same period. Therefore, I believe, it is imperative not to make even a minor change to the past or future during time travel until we understand the implications.

Based on the above discussion, the implications of using time travel as a weapon are enormous. However, if time travel is used as a a weapon, we have no idea how this may impact the world line. If it is possible to adhere to the preserve the world line rule, traveling in time may become safe. Remember, our first nuclear weapons were small compared to today’s nuclear weapons. Even though they were comparatively small, the long-term effects included a 25% increase in the cancer rate of survivors during their lifetime. We had no idea that this side effect would result. Similarly, we have no idea what the long-term effects will be if we alter the world line. We already know from laboratory experiments that the arrow of time can be twisted. Things done in the future can alter the past. Obviously, altering the past may alter the future. We do not know much about it because we have not time traveled in any significant way. Until we do, preserving the world line makes complete sense.

Close-up of an antique clock face showing the time at 11:55 with Roman numerals and a warm, golden glow.

Is Time Real Or Just a Construct of Our Mind?

Categories, Physics, Time Travel, Universe Mysteries, , , , , , ,

Philosophers have debated the nature of time for over 2500 years, and have left us with three principal theories, listed below in no particular order:

1) Presentists Theory of Time—The “presentists” philosophers argue that present objects and experiences are real. The past and future do not exist. This would argue that time is an emerging concept, and exists in our minds.

2) Growing-Universe Theory of Time—The “growing-universe” philosophers argue that the past and present are real, but the future is not. Their reasoning is the future has not occurred. Therefore, they reason the future is indeterminate, and not real.

3) Eternalism Theory of Time—The “eternalism” philosophers believe that there are no significant differences among present, past, and future because the differences are purely subjective. Observers at vastly different distances from an event would observe it differently because the speed of light is finite and constant. The farthest-away observer may be seeing the birth of a star while the closest observer may be seeing the death of the same star. In effect, the closest observer is seeing what will be the future for the farthest-away observer.

Now let us ask what does science have to say about time and start by discussing the “arrow of time.” The flow of time, sometimes referred to as the “arrow of time,” is a source of debate, especially among physicists. Most physicists argue that time can only move in one direction based on “causality” (i.e., the relationship between cause and effect). The causality argument goes something like this: every event in the future is the result of some cause, another event, in the past. This appears to make perfect sense, and it squares with our everyday experience. However, experiments within the last several years appear to argue reverse causality is possible. Reverse causality means the future can and does influence the past. For example, in reverse causality, the outcome of an experiment is determined by something that occurs after the experiment is done. The future is somehow able to reach into the past and affect it. Are you skeptical? Skepticism is healthy, especially in science. Let us discuss this reverse causality experiment.

In 2009, physicist John Howell of the University of Rochester and his colleagues devised an experiment that involved passing a laser beam through a prism. The experiment also involved a mirror that moved in extremely small increments via its attachment to a motor. When the laser beam was turned on, part of the beam passed through the prism, and part of the beam bounced off the mirror. After the beam was reflected by the mirror, the Howell team used “weak measurements” (i.e., measurement where the measured system is weakly affected by the measurement device) to measure the angle of deflection. With these measurements, the team was able to determine how much the mirror had moved. This part of the experiment is normal, and in no way suggests reverse causality. However, the Howell team took it to the next level, and this changed history, literally. Here is what they did. They set up two gates to make the reflected mirror measurements. After passing the beam through the first gate, the experimenters always made a measurement. After passing it through the second gate, the experimenters measured the beam only a portion of the time. If they chose not to make the measurement at the second gate, the amplitude of the deflected angle initially measured at the first gate was extremely small. If they chose to make the measurement at the second gate, the deflected angle initially measured at the first gate was amplified by a factor of 100. Somehow, the future measurement influenced the amplitude of the initial measurement. Your first instinct may be to consider this an experimental fluke, but it is not. Physicists Onur Hosten and Paul Kwiat, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, using a beam of polarized light, repeated the experiment. Their results indicated an even larger amplification factor, in the order of 10,000.

Although the above experimental results are relatively new, the classic double slit experiment implies exactly the same conclusion, namely future measurements can influence past behavior. For those of you not familiar with the double slit experiment, a brief synopsis is provided below.

There are numerous versions of the double-slit experiment. In its classic version, a coherent light source, for example a laser, illuminates a thin plate containing two open parallel slits. The light passing through the slits causes a series of light and dark bands on a screen behind the thin plate. The brightest bands are at the center, and the bands become dimmer the farther they are from the center. The series of light and dark bands on the screen would not occur if light were only a particle. If light consisted of only particles, we would expect to see only two slits of light on the screen, and the two slits of light would replicate the slits in the thin plate. Instead, we see a series of light and dark patterns, with the brightest band of light in the center, and tapering to the dimmest bands of light at either side of the center. This is an interference pattern and suggests that light exhibits the properties of a wave. We know from other experiments, for example the photoelectric effect, that light also exhibits the properties of a particle. Thus, light exhibits both particle- and wavelike properties. This is termed the dual nature of light. This portion of the double-slit experiment simply exhibits the wave nature of light. Perhaps a number of readers have seen this experiment firsthand in a high school science class.

The above double-slit experiment demonstrates only one element of the paradoxical nature of light, the wave properties. The next part of the double-slit experiment continues to puzzle scientists. There are five aspects to the next part.

1. Both individual photons of light and individual atoms have been projected at the slits one at a time. This means that one photon or one atom is projected, like a bullet from a gun, toward the slits. Surely, our judgment would suggest that we would only get two slits of light or atoms at the screen behind the slits. However, we still get an interference pattern, a series of light and dark lines, similar to the interference pattern described above. Two inferences are possible:

a. The individual photon light acted as a wave and went through both slits, interfering with itself to cause an interference pattern.
b. Atoms also exhibit a wave-particle duality, similar to light, and act similarly to the behavior of an individual photon light described (in part a) above.

2. Scientists have placed detectors in close proximity to the screen to observe what is happening, and they find something even stranger occurs. The interference pattern disappears, and only two slits of light or atoms appear on the screen. What causes this? Quantum physicists argue that as soon as we attempt to observe the wavefunction of the photon or atom, it collapses. Please note, in quantum mechanics, the wavefunction describes the propagation of the wave associated with any particle or group of particles. When the wavefunction collapses, the photon acts only as a particle.

3. If the detector (in number 2 immediately above) stays in place but is turned off (i.e., no observation or recording of data occurs), the interference pattern returns and is observed on the screen. We have no way of explaining how the photons or atoms know the detector is off, but somehow they know. This is part of the puzzling aspect of the double-slit experiment. This also appears to support the arguments of quantum physicists, namely, that observing the wavefunction will cause it to collapse.

4. The quantum eraser experiment—Quantum physicists argue the double-slit experiment demonstrates another unusual property of quantum mechanics, namely, an effect termed the quantum eraser experiment. Essentially, it has two parts:

a. Detectors record the path of a photon regarding which slit it goes through. As described above, the act of measuring “which path” destroys the interference pattern.
b. If the “which path” information is erased, the interference pattern returns. It does not matter in which order the “which path” information is erased. It can be erased before or after the detection of the photons.

This appears to support the wavefunction collapse theory, namely, observing the photon causes its wavefunction to collapse and assume a single value.

5. If the detector replaces the screen and only views the atoms or photons after they have passed through the slits, once again, the interference pattern vanishes and we get only two slits of light or atoms. How can we explain this? In 1978, American theoretical physicist John Wheeler (1911–2008) proposed that observing the photon or atom after it passes through the slit would ultimately determine if the photon or atom acts like a wave or particle. If you attempt to observe the photon or atom, or in any way collect data regarding either one’s behavior, the interference pattern vanishes, and you only get two slits of photons or atoms. In 1984, Carroll Alley, Oleg Jakubowicz, and William Wickes proved this experimentally at the University of Maryland. This is the “delayed-choice experiment.” Somehow, in measuring the future state of the photon, the results were able to influence their behavior at the slits. In effect, we are twisting the arrow of time, causing the future to influence the past. Numerous additional experiments confirm this result.

Let us pause here and be perfectly clear. Measuring the future state of the photon after it has gone through the slits causes the interference pattern to vanish. Somehow, a measurement in the future is able to reach back into the past and cause the photons to behave differently. In this case, the measurement of the photon causes its wave nature to vanish (i.e., collapse) even after it has gone through the slit. The photon now acts like a particle, not a wave. This paradox is clear evidence that a future action can reach back and change the past.

To date, no quantum mechanical or other explanation has gained widespread acceptance in the scientific community. We are dealing with a time travel paradox that illustrates reverse causality (i.e., effect precedes cause), where the effect of measuring a photon affects its past behavior. This simple high-school-level experiment continues to baffle modern science. Although quantum physicists explain it as wavefunction collapse, the explanation tends not to satisfy many in the scientific community. Irrefutably, the delayed-choice experiments suggest the arrow of time is reversible and the future can influence the past.

The above experimental results raise questions about the “arrow of time.” It appears that under certain circumstances, the arrow of time can point in either direction, and time can flow in either direction, forward or backward. If that is true, we can argue time has a physical reality. In other words, it is not a construct of our mind. The reality of time implies that actions in the past can influence the future and actions in the future can influence the past. If time were simply a mental construct, it would not be possible for future events to influence the past.

One last point, none of the above negates Einstein’s view of reality consisting of four-dimensional space-time. All aspects of relativity continue to apply. The above article is intended to substantiate that nature of time itself is a physical reality and not a mental or mathematical construct.

Multiple overlapping clock faces with various times, creating a surreal and abstract time concept in blue tones.

Stephen Hawking’s Chronology Protection Conjecture’s Impact On Time Travel Science

Categories, Physics, Time Travel, , ,

Most of the scientific community agrees that time travel is theoretically possible, based on Einstein’s special and general theories of relativity. However, world-famous cosmologist and physicist Stephen Hawking published a 1992 paper, “Chronology Protection Conjecture,” in which he stated the laws of physics do not allow the appearance of closed timelike curves (i.e., time travel to the past). Since its publication, the chronology protection conjecture has been significantly criticized. Most of the criticism centered on Dr. Hawking’s use of semiclassical gravity, versus using quantum gravity, to make his arguments. Dr. Hawking acknowledged, in 1998, that portions of the criticism are valid.

However, not to take sides on this issue, I feel compelled to point out that the two fundamental pillars of modern science, namely, general relativity and quantum mechanics, are incompatible. This placed Dr. Hawking in a difficult position regarding the use of gravity in writing the chronology protection conjecture. General relativity and quantum mechanics do not come together to provide a quantum gravity theory. This argues that we still do not have the whole picture, which makes it difficult to completely rule out Dr. Hawking’s chronology protection conjecture.

Currently, there is no widespread consensus on any theory that unifies general relativity with quantum mechanics. If such a theory existed, it would be the theory of everything (TOE) and would provide us with a quantum gravity theory. Highly regarded physicists, such as Stephen Hawking, believe M-theory (i.e., membrane theory), which is the most comprehensive string theory, is a candidate for the theory of everything. However, there is significant disagreement in the scientific community. Many physicists argue that M-theory is not experimentally verifiable, and on that basis is not a valid theory of science. However, to be fair to all sides, Einstein’s special theory of relativity, published in 1905, was also not experimentally verifiable for years. Today, most of the scientific community views the special theory of relativity as science fact, having withstood over one hundred years of scientific investigation. The scientific community, which didn’t really know what to make of the special theory of relativity in 1905, hails it now as the “gold standard” of theories, arguing that other theories must measure up to the same standards of rigorous investigation. I think science is better served by a more moderate position. In this regard, I agree with prominent physicist and author Michio Kaku, who stated in Nina L. Diamond’s Voices of Truth (2000), “The strength and weakness of physicists is that we believe in what we can measure. And if we can’t measure it, then we say it probably doesn’t exist. And that closes us off to an enormous amount of phenomena that we may not be able to measure because they only happened once. The Big Bang is an example. That’s one reason why they scoffed at higher dimensions for so many years. Now we realize that there’s no alternative.”

In essence, we need to keep an open mind, regardless of how bizarre a scientific theory may first appear. However, we need to balance our open-mindedness with experimental verification. This, to my mind, is how science advances.

science of time & time dilation

Will Time Have Meaning in the Post Singularity World? Part 1/3

Artificial Intelligence, Categories, Physics, Technology, Time Travel, Universe Mysteries, , , ,

Will time have meaning in the post singularity world? Let’s start by understanding terms. The first term we will work at understanding is “time.”

Almost everyone agrees that time is a measure of change, for example, the ticking of a clock as the second hand sweeps around the dial represents change. If that is true, time is a measure of energy because energy is required to cause change. Numerous proponents of the “Big Bang” hold that the Big Bang itself gave birth to time. They argue that prior to the Big Bang, time did not exist. This concept fits well into our commonsense notion that time is a measure of change.

Our modern conception of time comes from Einstein’s special theory of relativity. In this theory, the rates of time run differently, depending on the relative motion of observers, and their spatial relationship to the event under observation. In effect, Einstein unified space and time into the concept of space-time. According to this view of time, we live on a world line, defined as the unique path of an object as it travels through four-dimensional space-time, rather than a timeline. At this point, it is reasonable to ask: what is the fourth dimension?

The fourth dimension is often associated with Einstein, and typically equated with time. However, it was German mathematician Hermann Minkowski (1864-1909), who enhanced the understanding of Einstein’s special theory of relativity by introducing the concept of four-dimensional space, since then known as “Minkowski space-time.”

In the special theory of relativity, Einstein used Minkowski’s four dimensional space—X1, X2, X3, X4, where X1, X2, X3 are the typical coordinates of the three dimensional space—and X4 = ict, where i = square root of -1, c is the speed of light in empty space, and t is time, representing the numerical order of physical events measured with “clocks.” (The mathematical expression i is an imaginary number because it is not possible to solve for the square root of a negative number.) Therefore, X4 = ict, is a spatial coordinate, not a “temporal coordinate.” This forms the basis for weaving space and time into space-time. However, this still does not answer the question, what is time? Unfortunately, no one has defined it exactly. Most scientists, including Einstein, considered time (t) the numerical orders of physical events (change). The forth coordinate (X4 = ict) is considered to be a spatial coordinate, on equal footing with X1, X2, and X3 (the typical coordinates of three-dimensional space).

However, let’s consider a case where there are no events and no observable or measurable changes. Does time still exist? I believe the answer to this question is yes, but now time must be equated to existence to have any meaning. This begs yet another difficult question: How does existence give meaning to time?

We are at a point where we need to use our imagination and investigate a different approach to understand the nature of time. This is going to be speculative. After consideration, I suggest understanding the nature of time requires we investigate the kinetic energy associated with moving in four dimensions. The kinetic energy refers to an object’s energy due to its movement. For example, you may be able to bounce a rubber ball softly against a window without breaking it. However, if you throw the ball at the window, it may break the glass. When thrown hard, the ball has more kinetic energy due to its higher velocity. The velocity described in this example relates to the ball’s movement in three-dimensional space (X1, X2, and X3). Even when the ball is at rest in three-dimensional space, it is it still moving in the fourth dimension, X4. This leads to an interesting question. If it is moving in the fourth dimension, X4, what is the kinetic energy associated with that movement?

To calculate the kinetic energy associated with movement in the fourth dimension, X4, we use relativistic mechanics, from Einstein’s special theory of relativity and the mathematical discipline of calculus. Intuitively, it seems appropriate to use relativistic mechanics, since the special theory of relativity makes extensive use of Minkowski space and the X4 coordinate, as described above. It provides the most accurate methodology to calculate the kinetic energy of an object, which is the energy associated with an object’s movement.

If we use the result derived from the relativistic kinetic energy, the equation becomes:

KEX4 = -.3mc2

Where KEX4is the energy associated with an object’s movement in time, m is rest mass of an object, and c is the speed of light in a vacuum.

For purposes of reference, I have termed this equation, KEX4 = -.3mc2, the “Existence Equation Conjecture.” (Note: With the tools of algebra, calculus, and Einstein’s equation for kinetic energy, along with the assumption that the object is at rest, the derivation is relatively straightforward. The complete derivation is presented in my books, Unraveling the Universe’s Mysteries, appendix 1, and How to Time Travel, appendix 2.)

According to the existence equation conjecture, existence (i.e., movement in time) requires negative kinetic energy. This is fully consistent with our observation that applying (positive) kinetic or gravitational energy to elementary particles extends their existence. There may also be a relationship between entropy (a measure of disorder) and the Existence Equation Conjecture. What is the rationale behind this statement? First, time is a measure of change. Second, any change increases entropy in the universe. Thus, the universe’s disorderliness is increasing with time. If we argue the entropy of the universe was at a minimum the instant prior to the Big Bang—since it represented an infinitely dense-energy point prior to change—then all change from the Big Bang on, served to increase entropy. Even though highly ordered planets and solar systems formed, the net entropy of the universe increased. Thus, any change, typically associated with time, is associated with increasing entropy. This implies that the Existence Equation Conjecture may have a connection to entropy.

What does all of the above say about the nature of time? If we are on the right track, it says describing the nature of time requires six crucial elements, all of which are simultaneously true.

  1. Time is change. (This is true, even though it was not true in our “thought experiment” of an isolated atom at absolute zero. As mentioned above, it is not possible for any object to reach absolute zero. The purpose of the thought experiment was to illustrate the concept of “existence” separate from “change.”)
  2. Time is a measure of energy, since change requires energy.
  3. Time is a measure of existence. (The isolated atom, at absolute zero, enables us to envision existence separate from change.)
  4. Movement in time (or existence) requires negative energy.
  5. The energy to fuel time (existence) is enormous. It may be responsible for the life times associated with unstable elementary particles, essentially consuming them, in part, to satisfy the Existence Equation Conjecture. It may be drawing energy from the universe (dark energy). If correct, it provides insight into the nature of dark energy. Essentially the negative energy we call dark energy is required to fuel existence (please see my posts: Dark Matter, Dark Energy, and the Accelerating Universe – Parts 1-4).
  6. Lastly, the enormousness changes in entropy, creating chaos in the universe, may be the price we pay for time. Since entropy increases with change, and time is a measure of change, there appears to be a time-entropy relationship. In addition, entropy proceeds in one direction. It always increases when change occurs. The directional alignment, and the physical processes of time, suggests a relationship between time and entropy.

This view of time is speculative, but fits the empirical observations of time. A lot of the speculation rests on the validity of the Existence Equation Conjecture. Is it valid? As shown in appendix 2 of Unraveling the Universe’s Mysteries (2012) and appendix 2 of How to Time Travel (2013), it is entirely consistent with data from a high-energy particle-accelerator experiment involving muons moving near the speed of light. The experimental results agree closely with predictions of the Existence Equation Conjecture (within 2%). This data point is consistent with the hypothesis that adding kinetic energy can fuel the energy required for existence. The implications are enormous, and require serious scientific scrutiny. I published the Existence Equation Conjecture in the above books to disseminate information, and enable the scientific scrutiny.

The Existence Equation Conjecture represents a milestone. If further evaluation continues to confirm the validity of the Existence Equation Conjecture, we have a new insight into the nature of time. Existence (movement in time) requires enormous negative energy. The Existence Equation Conjecture, itself, provides insight into the physical processes underpinning time dilation (i.e., why time slows down when a mass is moving close to the speed of light or is in a high gravitational field). It answers the question why a subatomic particle’s life increases with the addition of kinetic or gravitational energy. It offers a solution path to a mystery that has baffled science since 1998, namely the cause of the accelerated expansion of the universe (please see my posts: Dark Matter, Dark Energy, and the Accelerating Universe – Parts 1-4). Lastly, it may contain one of the keys to time travel.

In the next post (part 2), we will explore what the technological singularity and the post singularity world in our quest to determine if time has meaning in the post singularity world.