Tag Archives: how to time travel

A black and white image of a clock face with a spiral effect distorting the numbers and hands.

Reverse Causality – The Future Can Change the Past

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

Most people find reverse causality intriguing, but impossible. Yet, it has a strong basis in science. In my book, How to Time Travel, I discuss a number of reverse causality examples. Here are some from the book.

Twisting 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.

The Double-Slit Experiment

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, which is well accepted in the scientific community. This is termed the dual nature of light. This portion of the double-slit experiment simply exhibits the wave nature of light.

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.

Summary

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. This is a scientific result. It may be hard to believe, but the above experiments have been repeated. In the case of the double-slit experiment, it has been repeated numerous times. No one has been able to provide a widely accepted explanation. Reverse causality is a true mystery of science.

 

A cosmic spiral clock with a bright center, blending space and time elements with a rainbow arc.

Is Time Travel to the Future Possible?

Categories, Physics, Time Travel, , , , ,

Since the future doesn’t exist, how would it be possible to travel into the future? This question has been debated by both philosophers and scientists. However, time travel to the future is the only experimental evidence we have of time travel. To understand this, we will need to understand Einstein’s theories of special and general relativity.

The science of time travel was launch in 1905,  when Einstein published his special theory of relativity in the prestigious Annalen der Physik (i.e., Annals of Physics), one of the oldest scientific journals (established in 1790). The paper that Einstein submitted regarding his special theory of relativity was titled “On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies.” By scientific standards, it was unconventional. It contained little in the way of mathematical formulations or scientific references. Instead, it was written in a conversational style using thought experiments. If you examine the historical context, Einstein had few colleagues in the scientific establishment to bounce ideas off. In fact, Einstein essentially cofounded, along with mathematician Conrad Habicht and close friend Maurice Solovine, a small discussion group, the Olympia Academy, which met on a routine basis at Solovine’s flat to discuss science and philosophy. It is also interesting to note that Einstein’s position as a patent examiner related to questions about transmission of electric signals and electrical-mechanical synchronization of time. Most historians credit Einstein’s early work as a patent examiner with laying the foundation for his thought experiments on the nature of light and the integration of space and time (i.e., spacetime).

Einstein’s special theory of relativity gave us numerous new important insights into reality, among them the famous mass equivalence formula (E = mc2) and the concept and formula for time dilation. Time dilation lays the foundation for forward time travel, so let’s understand it in more depth.

According to special relativity’s time dilation, as a clock moves close to the speed of light, time slows down relative to a clock at rest. The implication is that if you were able to travel in a spaceship that was capable of approaching the speed of light, a one-year round trip journey as measured by you on a clock within the spaceship would be equivalent to approximately ten or more years of Earth time, depending on your exact velocity. In effect, when you return to Earth, you will have traveled to Earth’s future. This is not science fiction. As I mentioned above, time dilation has been experimentally verified using particle accelerators. It is widely considered a science fact.

What scientific experimental evidence do we have that time dilation is real. Here are several experiments that validate time dilation caused when particles move close to the speed of light.

Velocity time dilation experimental evidence:

Rossi and Hall (1941) compared the population of cosmic-ray-produced muons at the top of a six-thousand-foot-high mountain to muons observed at sea level. A muon is a subatomic particle with a negative charge and about two hundred times more massive than an electron. Muons occur naturally when cosmic rays (energetic-charged subatomic particles, like protons, originating in outer space) interact with the atmosphere. Muons, at rest, disintegrate in about 2 x 10-6 seconds. The mountain chosen by Rossi and Hall was high. The muons should have mostly disintegrated before they reached the ground. Therefore, extremely few muons should have been detected at ground level, versus the top of the mountain. However, their experimental results indicated the muon sample at the base experienced only a moderate reduction. The muons were decaying approximately ten times slower than if they were at rest. They made use of Einstein’s time dilation effect to explain this discrepancy. They attributed the muon’s high speed, with its associated high kinetic energy, to be dilating time.

In 1963, Frisch and Smith once again confirmed the Rossi and Hall experiment, proving beyond doubt that extremely high kinetic energy prolongs a particle’s life.

With the advent of particle accelerators that are capable of moving particles at near light speed, the confirmation of time dilation has become routine. A particle accelerator is a scientific apparatus for accelerating subatomic particles to high velocities by using electric or electromagnetic fields. In 1977, J. Bailey and CERN (European Organization for Nuclear Research) colleagues accelerated muons to within 0.9994% of the speed of light and found their lifetime had been extended by 29.3 times their corresponding rest mass lifetime. (Reference: Bailey, J., et al., Nature 268, 301 [1977] on muon lifetimes and time dilation.) This experiment confirmed the “twin paradox,” whereby a twin makes a journey into space in a near-speed-of-light spaceship and returns home to find he has aged less than his identical twin who stayed on Earth. This means that clocks sent away at near the speed of light and returned near the speed of light to their initial position demonstrate retardation (record less time) with respect to a resting clock.

Time dilation can also occur as a result of gravity. Our understanding of this comes from Einstein’s theory of general relativity. What is the difference between the special and general theory of relativity? Einstein used the term “special” when describing his special theory of relativity because it only applied to inertial frames of reference, which are frames of reference moving at a constant velocity or at rest. It also did not incorporate the effects of gravity. Shortly after the publication of special relativity, Einstein began work to consider how he could integrate gravity and noninertial frames into the theory of relativity. The problem turned out to be monumental, even for Einstein. Starting in 1907, his initial thought experiment considered an observer in free fall. On the surface, this does not sound like it would be a difficult problem for Einstein, given his previous accomplishments. However, it required eight years of work, incorporating numerous false starts, before Einstein was ready to reveal his general theory of relativity.

In November 1915, Einstein presented his general theory of relativity to the Prussian Academy of Science in Berlin. The equations Einstein presented, now known as Einstein’s field equations, describe how matter influences the geometry of space and time. In effect, Einstein’s field equations predicted that matter or energy would cause spacetime to curve. This means that matter or energy has the ability to affect, even distort, space and time. One important aspect prediction of general relativity was that gravitational fields could cause time dilation. Here are some important experiments that prove this aspect of general relativity is correct.

Gravitational time dilation experimental evidence:

In 1959, Pound and Rebka measured a slight redshift in the frequency of light emitted close to the Earth’s surface (where Earth’s gravitational field is higher), versus the frequency of light emitted at a distance farther from the Earth’s surface. The results they measured were within 10% of those predicted by the gravitational time dilation of general relativity.

In 1964, Pound and Snider performed a similar experiment, and their measurements were within 1% predicted by general relativity.

In 1980, the team of Vessot, Levine, Mattison, Blomberg, Hoffman, Nystrom, Farrel, Decher, Eby, Baugher, Watts, Teuber, and Wills published “Test of Relativistic Gravitation with a Space-Borne Hydrogen Maser,” and increased the accuracy of measurement to about 0.01%. In 2010, Chou, Hume, Rosenband, and Wineland published “Optical Clocks and Relativity.” This experiment confirmed gravitational time dilation at a height difference of one meter using optical atomic clocks, which are considered the most accurate types of clocks.

The above discussion provides some insight into time dilation, or what some term time travel to the future. However, is it conclusive? Not to my mind! Although we have numerous experiments that demonstrate time dilation (i.e., forward time travel) involving subatomic particles is real, we have been unable to demonstrate significant human time dilation. By the word “significant,” I mean that it would be noticeable to the humans and other observers involved. To date, some humans, such as astronauts and cosmonauts, have experienced forward time travel (i.e., time dilation) in the order of approximately 1/50th of a second, which is not noticeable to our human senses. If it were in the order of seconds or minutes, then it would be noticeable. Scientifically speaking, there is no documented significant evidence of human time travel to the future.

To answer the subject question of this post, time travel to the future appears to have a valid scientific and experimental foundation. However, to date the experimental evidence does not include significant (noticeable)  human time travel to the future, which leaves the question still unanswered. My own view is that when we develop space craft capable of speeds approaching the speed of light with humans on board, time dilation (time travel to the future) will be conclusively proven.

A digital abstract representation of interconnected blue clock faces with intricate geometric patterns.

Is Time Travel to the Past Possible?

Categories, Physics, Time Travel, , , ,

For time travel to the past to be possible would require that the past have a physical reality, namely that it continue to exist. If it did not continue to exist, it would suggest time travel to the past is impossible.

Time travel to the past has it theoretical foundation in Einstein’s special relativity. in the way of background, in November 1915, Einstein presented his general theory of relativity to the Prussian Academy of Science in Berlin. The equations Einstein presented, now known as Einstein’s field equations, describe how matter influences the geometry of space and time. In effect, Einstein’s field equations predicted that matter or energy would cause spacetime to curve. This means that matter or energy has the ability to affect, even distort, space and time.

Many of the predictions of general relativity have been scientifically verified. Two of the most important predictions for our study of time travel are (1) gravitational time dilation and (2) closed timelike curves.

Gravitational time dilation predicts that a clock in a strong gravitational field will run slower than a clock in a weak gravitational field. Therefore, a clock on the surface of Jupiter, a massive gas planet three hundred times larger than the Earth, resulting in a significantly stronger gravitational field, will run much slower than a clock on the surface of the Earth. This phenomenon was first verified on Earth, with clocks at different altitudes from the Earth’s surface. Using atomic clocks, time dilation effects are detectable when the clocks differ in altitude by as little as one meter.

Gravitational time dilation also occurs in accelerating frames of reference (i.e., noninertial frames of reference). According to Einstein’s general theory of relativity, an accelerated frame of reference produces an “inertial force,” also termed a “pseudo force,” that results in the same effect as a gravitational force in an inertial frame of reference. The equivalence of the inertial force in a noninertial frame of reference (i.e., an accelerating frame of reference) to a gravitational force in an inertial frame of reference (i.e., a frame of reference moving at a constant velocity) is termed the equivalence principle. The equivalence principle refers to the equivalence of “inertial mass” and “gravitational mass.” Therefore, a blindfolded person in a rapidly ascending elevator would experience a force equivalent to an increase in gravity, as if standing on a planet more massive than Earth. The blindfolded person would not be able to determine if the force experienced is inertial or gravitational. This effect also holds true for time dilation. Time moves slower in a highly accelerated frame of reference in much the same way it would as if it were in a strong gravitational field. It is important to note, a frame of reference can accelerate in two fundamental ways. It can accelerate along a straight line, or it can accelerate by rotating.

Next, let us discuss closed timelike curves. What is a closed timelike curve? It is an exact solution to Einstein’s general relativity equations demonstrating a particle’s world line (i.e., the path the particle follows in four-dimensional spacetime) is “closed” (i.e., the particle returns to its starting point). Closed timelike curves theoretically suggest the possibility of backward time travel. The particle’s world line is describable by four coordinates at each point along the world line, and when it closes on itself, the four coordinates at the start equal the four coordinates at the end. The particle, conceptually, went back to its past (i.e., the starting point). You can think of this like a horse racetrack. As the horse runs around the track, the horse eventually crosses the finish line, the starting point. If we allow the horse racetrack to represent a world line, then when the horse crosses the finish line, the horse has returned to its past (i.e., the starting point). In the mathematics of general relativity, the starting four coordinates, including the fourth dimensional coordinate that includes a time component, equal the four coordinates at the finish line.

The first person to discover a solution to Einstein’s general relativity equations suggesting closed timelike curves (CTCs) was Austrian American logician, mathematician, and philosopher Kurt Gödel, in 1949. The solution was termed the Gödel metric. Since 1949, numerous other solutions containing CTCs have been found, such as the Tipler cylinder and traversable wormholes, both of which will be discussed in section 3. The numerous solutions to Einstein’s general relativity equations suggest that time travel to the past is theoretically possible. However, the entire scientific community is not in complete agreement on this last point.

The largest issue that physicists have with backward time travel is causality violations (cause and effect), where the effect precedes the cause. These violations of causality are termed “time travel paradoxes.” Some physicists suggest that time travel paradoxes inhibit backward time travel, while other physicists argue that time travel paradoxes can be reconciled, and backward time travel is possible. There is no scientific consensus regarding the reality or practicality of time travel to the past. Although, there are a number of experiments that suggest reverse causality is scientifically possible.

Let us consider a recent experiment that demonstrates reverse causality is not only possible, but a scientific fact. 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.

The above experiment strongly suggest that the future can influence the past. This implies, the past must continue exist and have a physical reality. If it no longer existed, how could the future influence the past. as the above experiments demonstrate.

This is an exciting time for science. Physical experiments suggest that the past may continue to physically exist. If that is true, then time travel to the past may be possible. The is an old saying in physics, “That which is not forbidden by physical law is compulsory.” The exact origin of the saying is not clearly known, but is often attributed to Murray Gell-Mann (born 15 September 1929), an American physicist who received the 1969 Nobel Prize in Physics for his work on the theory of elementary particles. To my mind, this saying suggests it is only a matter of time before we discover how to time travel to the past.

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.

A diagram showing a black rod in space with concentric circles and arrows, labeled with time (x) and space (y) axes.

Tipler cylinder time travel – Is It Possible?

Categories, Time Travel, , , , ,

The Tipler cylinder is a cylinder of dense matter and infinite length. Historically, Dutch mathematician Willem Jacob van Stockum (1910–1944) found Tipler cylinder solutions to Einstein’s equations of general relativity in 1924. Hungarian mathematician/physicist Cornel Lanczos (1893–1974) found similar Tipler cylinder solutions in 1936. Unfortunately, neither Stockum nor Lanczos made any observations that their solutions implied closed timelike curves (i.e., time travel to the past).

In 1974, American mathematical physicist/cosmologist Frank Tipler’s analysis of the above solutions uncovered that a massive cylinder of infinite length spinning at high speed around its long axis could enable time travel. Essentially, if you walk around the cylinder in a spiral path in one direction, you can move back in time, and if you walk in the opposite direction, you can move forward in time. This solution to Einstein’s equations of general relativity is known as the Tipler cylinder. The Tipler cylinder is not a practical time machine, since it needs to be infinitely long. Tipler suggests that a finite cylinder may accomplish the same effect if its speed of rotation increases significantly. However, the practicality of building a Tipler cylinder was discredited by Stephen Hawking, who provided a mathematical proof that according to general relativity it is impossible to build a time machine in any finite region that contains no exotic matter with negative energy. The Tipler cylinder does not involve any negative energy. Tipler’s original solution involved a cylinder of infinite length, which is easier to analyze mathematically, and although Tipler suggested that a finite cylinder might produce closed timelike curves if the rotation rate were fast enough, Hawking’s proof appears to rule this out. According to  Hawking, “it can’t be done with positive energy density everywhere! I can prove that to build a finite time machine, you need negative energy.”

One caveat, Hawking’s proof appears in his 1992 paper on the “chronology protection conjecture,” which has come under serious criticism by numerous physicists. Their main objection to the Hawking’s conjecture is that he did not employ quantum gravity to make his case. On the other hand, Hawking and others have not been able to develop a widely accepted theory of quantum gravity. Hawking did just about the only thing he could do under the circumstances. He used Einstein’s formulation of gravity as found in the general theory of relativity. Another fact, Hawking’s proof regarding the Tipler cylinder is somewhat divorced from the main aspects of his paper and could be viewed to stand on its own. However, in science we are always judged by the weakest link in our theory. Thus, with a broad brush, the chronology protection conjecture has been discredited, and even Hawking has acknowledged some of its short comings.

Where does that leave us with a finite Tipler cylinder time machine? In limbo! There is no widely accepted proof that a finite Tipler cylinder spinning at any rate would be capable of time travel. There is also another problem. We lack any experimental evidence of a spinning Tipler cylinder influencing time.

Source: How to Time Travel (2013), Louis A. Del Monte

Diagram of a double slit experiment setup showing a monochromatic light source, double slit, and interference pattern on a screen.

The Classic Double Slit Experiment Is a 100 Year Old Time Travel Paradox that Continues to Baffles Modern Science

Categories, Time Travel, , , ,

First, let’s define a time travel paradox. It is an occurrence that apparently violates some aspect of causality typically associated with time travel. Many science students are introduced to the oddities of the double slit experiment in an advanced high school science class or in an entry level college science class. The double slit experiment is a paradox that has to do with the the future changing the present or the past. The effect has been known for well over a hundred years. It continues to this day to baffle science.

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. See the figure below:

3-17-2014 3-08-41 AM Double Slit Fig 1 small

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 (see glossary), which I discussed in my first book, Unraveling the Universe’s Mysteries—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:
    1. The individual photon light acted as a wave and went through both slits, interfering with itself to cause an interference pattern.
    2. 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:
    1. 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.
    2. 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.

  1. 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.

Source: How to Time Travel (2013), Louis A. Del Monte

Aliens and UFOs

Are UFOs Time Travelers from the Future?

Categories, Time Travel, , , , , ,

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 COMETA membership 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. Does this rule out that they are future generations of humans, visiting the past? In my opinion, it does not. Even the conclusions of the 1999 COMETA study did not rule out this possibility. However, there is no conclusive evidence either way.

You will find an English translation of the 1999 COMETA study at this website address: http://www.ufoevidence.org/newsite/files/COMETA_part2.pdf.

The main questions regarding time travel and UFOs are:

  • Are the UFOs future generations of humans, time traveling back to our past and present?
  • Are the UFOs alien spacecraft, or secret government experimental spacecraft, able to traverse great distances using technologies essential to time travel, like a matter-antimatter propulsion system?

I suggest you read the complete 1999 COMETA study and draw your own conclusions.

Source: How to Time Travel (2013), Louis A. Del Monte

A black and white image of a clock face with a spiral effect distorting the numbers and hands.

Twisting the Arrow of Time

Categories, Time Travel, , , , ,

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.

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. This is a scientific result, and I am not going to speculate about religious connotations, free will, and the like. Obviously, there are numerous religious connotations possible and a plethora of associated questions.

Source: How to Time Travel (2013), Louis A. Del Monte

Abstract fractal pattern resembling a cosmic or underwater scene with glowing blue and white textures.

How Negative Energy and Time Travel to the Past Are Connected

Categories, Time Travel, , , , , ,

Today’s science knows precious little about negative energy. The best example we have of creating negative energy in the laboratory is the Casimir effect, which we briefly discussed previously, but will now discuss in detail. Let us start by discussing the energy associated with a vacuum. Vacuums contain energy. One simple experiment to prove this is to take two electrically neutral metal plates and space them closely together in a vacuum. They will be attracted to each other (i.e., the Casimir effect). At approximately 10 nm (i.e., 1/100,000 meters) separation, the plates experience an attraction force of about one atmosphere (i.e., typically, the pressure we feel at sea level on Earth). What is causing this force?

The energy in a vacuum is termed “vacuum energy.” Surprisingly, it appears to obey the laws of quantum mechanics. For example, the energy will statistically vary within the vacuum. When the vacuum energy statistically concentrates, it gives rise to virtual particles, which is termed a “quantum fluctuation.” When the metal plates are spaced closely, relatively few virtual particles can form between the plates. A much larger population of virtual particles can form around the plates. This larger population of particles exerts a force on the outside of the plates. This force is the Casimir-Polder force, and it pushes the plates together. However, another strange physical phenomenon is also occurring between the closely spaced plates. In quantum mechanics, every particle has a “zero-point energy.” Even a vacuum is said to have a zero-point energy. The zero-point energy, or the “ground state,” is the lowest energy level that a particle or a vacuum may have. By reducing the space between the plates, some physicists believe we are reducing the normal zero point energy of the vacuum between the plates. When this occurs, those physicists argue the vacuum energy between the plates is negative energy (i.e., below the zero-point energy).

The scientific community is not in complete consensus regarding the properties or even the existence of negative energy. Physicists are able to mathematically model negative energy and use those models to make predictions regarding the theoretical behavior of negative energy. While the mathematical models do not prove the existence of negative energy, it is instructive to consider their predictions, and their implications to time travel. Here are the salient features of negative energy based on the mathematical modeling:

• Negative energy implies the existence of negative mass. This, of course, begs a question. What is negative mass? Negative mass is a hypothetical concept in theoretical physics. Anglo-Austrian mathematician and cosmologist Hermann Bondi suggested its existence in 1957. If it exists, it is the negative counterpart of normal (i.e., positive) mass and exhibits unusual properties. For example, normal masses exhibit attractive forces, known as gravitational attraction. Negative masses would exhibit repulsive forces. However, be careful not to equate negative mass with antimatter. The vast majority of the scientific community holds that antimatter is still positive mass. Based on this consensus, they predict antimatter would exhibit the same properties as positive mass. For example, two antimatter particles would exert an attractive force on each other, not a repulsive force. The implications of negative mass on time travel are ambiguous, since the existence of negative mass itself is ambiguous.

• Several in the scientific community suggest that a negative energy vacuum would allow light to travel faster than a normal positive energy vacuum. If this theory proves to be correct, it could have major implications for time travel. For example, there is speculation that this property may allow people to travel faster than the speed of light in a negative-energy vacuum bubble. Previously, we have discussed that as a mass approaches the speed of light, time dilates (i.e., time slows down for the mass). If the mass exceeds the speed of light, the implication is that it can travel into the past. We will discuss this further in the next chapter.

• Stephen Hawking and other physicists suggest that negative energy is required to stabilize a “traversable wormhole,” an entity that would allow a person, object, or information to travel between two points in time or space. Wormholes are a hypothetical shortcut between two points in time or two points in space. There are solutions to Einstein’s general equations of relativity suggesting the theoretical existence of wormholes. However, we have no observational evidence that they exist in reality.

Until we can find a way to produce negative energy and apply it experimentally to determine its effect on time, we can only speculate.

Source: How to Time Travel (2013), Louis A. Del Monte

A silhouette of a person with a clock face behind them, symbolizing the concept of time and human existence.

The Greatest Engineering Challenge to Time Travel

Categories, Physics, Technology, Time Travel, , , ,

Without doubt, harnessing sufficient energy is  the largest obstacle to time travel. For example, time dilation (i.e., forward time travel) is only noticeable when mass approaches a significant fraction of the speed of light or sits in a strong gravitational field. To date, we have been able to accelerate subatomic particles to a point where time dilation becomes noticeable. We have also been able to observe time dilation of a highly accurate atomic clock on a jet plane as it flies over the airport, which contains another atomic clock. Using sensitive instruments, we can measure time dilation. We have also been able to measure time dilation due to differences in the Earth’s gravitational field. However, these differences are only evident using highly accurate atomic clocks. Our human senses are unable to detect a high mounted wall clock moving faster than our wristwatch, which gravitational time dilation predicts is occurring.

The fastest humankind has traveled is 25,000 miles per hour, using the Apollo 10 spacecraft. The speed of light in a vacuum is approximately 186,000 miles per second. This means that a spacecraft would have to go about 13,000 times faster than Apollo 10 for humans to experience noticeable time dilation, or a speed of about 90,000 miles per second, which is roughly half the speed of light. Today’s science has not learned to harness the amount of energy required to accelerate a spacecraft to a velocity of 90,000 miles per second.

Let us consider a simple example to illustrate the amount of energy required to achieve the above velocity. If we have a mass of 1000 kilograms (i.e., 2204 pounds), and we want to accelerate it to 10% the speed of light, the resulting kinetic energy would be about 1017 (i.e., a 1 with 17 zeros after it) joules, whether you calculate the kinetic energy using Newton’s classical formula or Einstein’s relativistic formula for kinetic energy. To put this in perspective, it is more than twice the amount of energy of the largest nuclear bomb ever detonated. It would take a modern nuclear power plant about ten years to output this amount of energy.

The above example gives us a conceptual framework to understand the amount of energy that would be required to accelerate a sizable mass, 1000 kilograms, or 2204 pounds, to just 10% the speed of light. If we wish to accelerate the mass, for example, a spacecraft, to a greater percentage, the energy increases exponentially. For example, to accelerate to 20% the speed of light would require four times the amount of energy.

Today’s engineering is unable to harness this level of energy. In the popular Star Trek television series and movies, the starship Enterprise is able to travel faster than the speed of light using a warp drive, by reacting matter with antimatter. Factually, there is almost no antimatter in the universe. This is one of the mysteries associated with the big bang science theory, which I discussed in my book, Unraveling the Universe’s Mysteries. In theory, during the big bang, matter and antimatter should exist in equal quantities. Our observation of the universe, using our best telescopes, detects almost no antimatter. However, Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory (Fermilab) in Illinois is able to produce about fifty billion antiprotons per hour. This, though, is a miniscule amount compared to the amount needed to power a starship. According to Dr. Lawrence Krauss, a physicist and author of The Physics of Star Trek, it would take one hundred thousand Fermilabs to power a single lightbulb. In essence, we are a long way from using matter-antimatter as a fuel. In addition, the Enterprise was able to warp space. This provided a means to skirt around Einstein’s well-established special theory of relativity, which asserts no mass can travel faster than the speed of light. There is no similar physical law that prohibits space from expanding faster than the speed of light. If we are able to manipulate space, similar to our discussion of the Alcubierre drive in the previous chapter, then scientifically the spacecraft could collapse space in front of it and expand space behind it. However, the Alcubierre drive requires negative energy. Today’s science is unable to create and harness negative energy in any significant way.

Therefore, topping our list of major scientific obstacles regarding time travel is generating huge amounts of energy, in either positive or negative form.

Source: How to Time Travel (2013), Louis A. Del Monte