Tag Archives: how to time travel

M-theory

Are There Any Real Time Machines? Part 2/2 (Conclusion)

Are there any real time machines?

In my opinion, we are in about the same place space travel was at the beginning of the twentieth century. At the beginning of the twentieth century, all we knew about space travel came from science fiction. We knew that birds could fly, and this observation provided hope that human air flight would eventually be possible. However, at this point we could only fly using balloons, which was a long way from controlled air flight. We knew about projectiles, such as cannonballs and simple rockets, and this provided hope that one day humankind would be able to travel into space. However, at the beginning of the twentieth century we were still three years away from building the first successful airplane. The first successful airplane did not come from a well-respected theory or formal scientific investigation. Most early attempts at air flight tended to focus on building powerful engines, or they attempted to imitate birds. The early attempts at air flight were dismal failures. The first successful heavier-than-air machine, the airplane, was invented in 1903 by two brothers, Orville and Wilbur Wright. They were not scientists, nor did they publish a scholarly paper in a scientific journal delineating their plans. Quite the contrary, the two brothers had a background in printing presses, bicycles, motors, and other machinery. Clearly, their background would not suggest they would invent the first airplane and lead humankind into space. However, their experience in machinery enabled them to build a small wind tunnel and collect the data necessary to sustain controlled air flight. From the beginning, the Wright brothers believed that the solution to controlled air flight lay hidden in pilot controls, rather than powerful engines. Based on their wind tunnel work, they invented what is now the standard method of all airplane controls, the three-axis control. They also invented efficient wing and propeller designs. It is likely that many in the scientific community in the beginning of the twentieth century would have considered aeronautics similar to the way the scientific community in the early part of the twenty-first century considers time travel—still something outside the fold of legitimate science. However, on December 17, 1903, at a small, remote airfield in Kitty Hawk, North Carolina, the two brothers made the first controlled, powered, and sustained heavier-than-air human flight. They invented the airplane. It was, of course, humankind’s first step into the heavens.

I believe the invention of the airplane is a good analogy to where we are regarding time travel. We have some examples, namely, time dilation data, and a theoretical basis that suggests time travel is potentially real. However, we have not reached the “Kitty Hawk” moment. If Dr. Mallett makes his time machine work, and that is a big “if,” numerous physicists will provide the theoretical foundation for its success, essentially erasing any errors that Dr. Mallett may have made in his calculations. He will walk as another great into the history of scientific achievement.

My point is a simple one. The line between scientific genius and scientific “crank” is a fine one. When Einstein initially introduced his special theory of relativity in 1905, he was either criticized or ignored. Few in the scientific community appreciated and understood Einstein’s special theory of relativity in 1905. It took about fifteen years for the scientific community to begin to accept it. Einstein was aware of the atmosphere that surrounded him. In 1919, he stated in the Times of London, “By an application of the theory of relativity to the taste of readers, today in Germany I am called a German man of science, and in England I am represented as a Swiss Jew. If I come to be represented as a bête noire, the descriptions will be reversed, and I shall become a Swiss Jew for the Germans and a German man of science for the English!”

Dr. Mallett is on record predicting a breakthrough in backward time travel within a decade. Only time and experimental evidence will prove if his prediction becomes reality. Even if the Mallett time machine works, it would still represent only a baby step. We would still be a long way from human time travel, but we would be one step closer.

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

science of time & time dilation

Are There Any Real Time Machines? Part 1/2

There are no existing time machines capable of sending humans forward or backward in time. The closest we have come to time travel is using particle accelerators to cause subatomic particles to experience time dilation (i.e., forward time travel). There is a significant amount of time dilation data available. Particle accelerators succeed in achieving time dilation by accelerating subatomic particles close to the speed of light. Unfortunately, though, backward time travel has no similar body of experimental data. The major problems with creating backward time travel appear to fall into three categories:

  1. Backward time travel appears to require negative energy, based on arguments made by American theoretical physicist Kip Thorne and British theoretical physicist/cosmologist Stephen Hawking. Many in the scientific community acknowledge that negative energy likely exists, and point to the Casimir effect, discussed previously, as an example in nature. However, today’s science is unable to harness negative energy in any meaningful way to make a time machine.
  2. Many in the scientific community, like physicists Dr. Olum and Dr. Everett, believe the amount of energy required to twist space sufficiently for spacetime manipulation and enable Dr. Mallett’s time machine to work is enormous. Conceptually, we may be talking about the amount of energy provided by a star, similar to our own sun. Harnessing this level of energy is far beyond today’s science. Science’s best efforts to study high-energy physics has to date been confined to particle accelerators, such as the Large Hadron Collider. There is no experimental evidence that Dr. Mallett has succeeded in manipulating spacetime.
  3. Many in the scientific community are concerned with causality violations, especially regarding backward time travel. However, as we learned in the section titled “Twisting the arrow of time,” there can also be causality violations regarding forward time travel. The causality violations are generally termed “time travel paradoxes,” which we will discuss in detail in the next chapter.

Having made the above points, I think it is important to point out that some physicists believe subatomic antimatter particles travel in the opposite direction in time (i.e., backward in time) versus their matter counterparts. For example, some physicists assert that positrons, the antimatter equivalent of electrons, travel backward in time, while electrons travel forward in time. In solid-state physics, if we consider a current flowing in a semiconductor, electrons in a semiconductor move as a current in one direction, while the “holes” (i.e., the position the electron occupied in the semiconductor, which becomes vacant when the electron moves as a current) move in the opposite direction. Physicists differ on whether the “holes” represent positrons (i.e., actual physical antimatter particles). I mention this for completeness. There is no scientific consensus that antimatter travels backward in time.

Where does this leave us? I think this question deserves a complete answer. Stay tuned for part 2.

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

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

Do Time Travel Paradoxes Negate the Possibility of Time Travel?

Do time travel paradoxes spell doom to time travel? The short answer is no. Many in the scientific community do not think time travel paradoxes present an insurmountable barrier to time travel. Many physicists have suggested solutions to time travel paradoxes. In fact, discussing them all would result in a book. I will discuss the major ones. For the sake of convenience, I have divided them into four categories:

  1. Multiverse hypothesis—The multiverse hypothesis argues that time travel paradoxes are real, but they lead to alternate realities. The most famous theory in this category is American physicist Hugh Everett’s many-worlds interpretation (MWI) of quantum mechanics. According to Everett (1930–1982), certain observations in reality are not predictable absolutely by quantum mechanics. Instead, there is a range of possible observations associated with physical phenomena, and each is associated with a different probability. Everett’s interpretation is that each possible observation corresponds to a different universe, hence the name “many-worlds.”  Let us consider a simple example. If you toss a coin in the air, it can come down heads or tails. The probability of getting heads is equal to the probability of getting tails. If you toss the coin, and it comes down heads, then there is another you, in another universe, who observes tails. This sounds like science fiction. However, according to a poll published in The Physics of Immortality (1994), 58% of scientists believe the many-world interpretation of quantum mechanics is true, 13% are on the fence (undecided), 11% have no opinion, and 18% do not believe it. Among the believers are Nobel laureates Murray Gell-Mann and Richard Feynman, and world-famous physicist/cosmologist Stephen Hawking. In our everyday reality, many of us would reject the many-world interpretation of quantum mechanics because we do not experience it directly. However, let me point out, we do not experience the individual atoms of a book when we hold it. Yet, we know from sophisticated experimental analysis that the book is a collection of atoms. Unfortunately, in the strange world of quantum mechanics, our intuition and experience rarely serve us. I leave it to you to formulate your own conclusions.
  2. Timeline-protection hypothesis—The timeline-protection hypothesis asserts that it is impossible to create a time travel paradox. For example, if you travel back in time and attempt to prevent your grandfather from meeting your grandmother, you fail every time. If you attempt to shoot yourself through a wormhole, the gun jams, or something else happens, which prevents you from changing the past. Several other paradox resolutions fit under this category. They are:
    • The Novikov self-consistency principle, suggested by Russian physicist Igor Dmitriyevich Novikov in the mid-1980s, which asserts anything a time traveler does remains consistent with history. For example, if you travel to the past and attempt to keep your grandfather from meeting your grandmother, something interferes with any attempt you make, causing you to fail in the attempt. In other words, the time traveler is unable to change history.
    • The self-healing hypothesis theory, which states that whatever a time traveler does to alter the present by traveling to the past sets off another set of events to cause the present to remain unchanged. For example, if you attempt to prevent Abraham Lincoln’s assassination, you may succeed in preventing John Wilkes Booth from carrying out the assassination only to find someone else assassinated Lincoln. In essence, time heals itself.
  3. Timeline-corruption hypothesis—The timeline-corruption hypothesis suggests that time paradoxes are inevitable and unavoidable. Any time travel to the past creates minute effects that inevitably alter the timeline and cause the future to change. For example, if you inadvertently step on an ant in the past, it changes the future. Popular science fiction literature calls this the “butterfly effect,” namely, that the flutter of a butterfly’s wings in Africa can cause a hurricane in North America. Under this theory, anything you do will have a consequence. It may be small and benign. Alternatively, it may be large and disastrous. The destruction-resolution hypothesis fits in this category. It holds that anything a time traveler does resulting in a paradox destroys the timeline, and even the universe. Obviously, if the destruction-resolution hypothesis is true, any time travel would be disastrous. However, I doubt the validity of the destruction-resolution hypothesis, since we are able to perform time dilation (i.e., forward time travel) experiments with subatomic particles using particle accelerators.
  4. Choice timeline hypothesis—The choice timeline hypothesis holds that if you choose to travel in time, it is predestined, and history instantly changes. This implies you can time travel to the future and leave an item there that you will need sometime in the future. It will be there for you when the future becomes the present. For example, assume you are in New York City, and someone is about to assault you. You have no escape or means of protection. According to the choice timeline hypothesis, you can use your time machine to travel to the future. You hide a gun near the place where the assault is about to occur. When the assault occurs, you retrieve the hidden gun and scare off the attacker.

There are numerous other time-paradox resolution hypotheses. Most fall under one of the above categories, or are not as popular as the above. I left them out in the interest of clarity and brevity. The four categories above give us a reasonable framework to understand the major time-paradox resolution theories, and the current thinking regarding their impact on the timeline.

The majority of the scientific community does not think time paradoxes inhibit time travel. For example, Kip Thorne, an American theoretical physicist and professor of theoretical physics at the California Institute of Technology until 2009, argues that time paradoxes are imprecise thought experiments which can be resolved by numerous consistent solutions. The scientific consensus appears to be that time paradoxes may or may not occur, but they do not exclude the possibility of time travel. This position appears validated by the time dilation (i.e., forward time travel) experiments routinely performed using particle accelerators.

This post is based on my book, How to Time Travel (2013)

Aliens and UFOs

Warp Drive – Time Travel to the Future – Science or Science Fiction?

Is a warp drive spaceship feasible? Mexican theoretical physicist Miguel Alcubierre thinks it is.

In 1994, Dr. Alcubierre published a 1994 paper, “The Warp Drive: Hyper-Fast Travel Within General Relativity,” in the science journal Classical and Quantum Gravity.

The Alcubierre drive appears to allow a spaceship to travel faster than light, but it requires the existence of negative mass to make the Alcubierre drive work. In principle, the drive works by contracting the space in front of the spaceship and expanding the space behind the spaceship faster than the speed of light. In this fashion, the spaceship rides like a surfer on a wave. As the space behind the spaceship expands faster than the speed of light, the spaceship appears to move faster than the speed of light. However, it does not. Only the space behind the ship is expanding faster than the speed of light. In this way, Dr. Alcubierre avoids violating the laws of special relativity, namely, that no mass can exceed the speed of light.

There is no law in physics that prohibits space from expanding faster than the speed of light. From this viewpoint, the Alcubierre drive has merit. The Alcubierre drive is a mathematically valid solution to Einstein’s field equations. However, requiring negative mass as part of the mechanism for the Alcubierre drive makes the theory highly speculative and, once again, beyond the reach of today’s science. As a side note, Dr. Alcubierre got this idea by watching Star Trek and its use of the warp drive.

Often today’s science fiction becomes tomorrow’s science fact.

This post is based on my new book, How to Time Travel (2013), Louis A. Del Monte.

A website homepage featuring a book titled How to Time Travel by Louis A. Del Monte with a clock image on the cover.

Kirkus Book Review of How to Time Travel

Kirkus Book Review of How to Time Travel

Kirkus Reviews (or Kirkus Media) is an American book review magazine founded in 1933 by Virginia Kirkus (1893–1980). Kirkus Reviews is published on the 1st and 15th of each month. Kirkus reviews over 7,000 titles per year, and their reviews are widely regarded by librarians and bookstores, which regularly peruse their lists for the “best” books to order. Therefore, a Kirkus review can significantly influence book sales. Recently, my new book, How to Time Travel, was reviewed by Kirkus and is live on their Website at https://bit.ly/1eTpFAv. If you are considering purchasing and reading How to Time Travel, I thought you would be interested in their review, which is is presented below in its entirety:

“Time travel—its possibilities, potential and primary obstacles—gets a levelheaded review from a physicist in this lucid, optimistic book.

Throughout Del Monte’s book, which focuses on how time travel might be accomplished and the major issues that stand in the way of its realization, he takes care to emphasize the scientific method, not just for time travel but in evaluating the theories and evidence behind it. By necessity, much of the book discusses various theories and speculations, beginning with Einstein’s Theory of Relativity and extending forward to modern formulations, ranging from Alcubierre’s space-warp proposal to Mallet’s space-time twist theory. Given that many in the scientific community believe time travel is at least theoretically possible, Del Monte focuses in later chapters on the engineering challenges, discussing what would be needed to achieve it and how civilization might go about reaching those milestones. While some of the ideas along the way are the stuff of conspiracy theorists and late-night talk radio—UFOs, the Philadelphia Experiment, etc.—Del Monte never condescends in his examinations, taking a rational, methodical approach to evaluating the possibilities and explaining why he thinks they do or don’t merit further examination. In his refreshingly even-keeled, forthright approach—particularly in his discussion of scientific and anecdotal evidence and the place of both in any thought process—Del Monte does an excellent job of exemplifying the scientific method in action. He clearly favors certain conclusions, but he takes pains to allow room for readers to develop their own interpretations, and he includes appendixes with further information to assist readers in digging deeper.

This articulate, principled use of scientific methodology offers a clear, rational examination of an intriguing concept.”