However, as Millington writes, there is still no theory that marries Einstein's theory of gravity with quantum mechanics — whether time travel to the past is possible or not will remain one of the many secrets of our universe. This post originally appeared on Business Insider Deutschland and has been translated from German. For you. World globe An icon of the world globe, indicating different international options. Get the Insider App.
Click here to learn more. A leading-edge research firm focused on digital transformation. Good Subscriber Account active since Shortcuts.
Account icon An icon in the shape of a person's head and shoulders. It often indicates a user profile. Log out. US Markets Loading H M S In the news. Science Contributors. Some years ago, Stephen Hawking stated that he had "experimental evidence that time travel is not possible". However, in his final book "Brief Answers to the Big Questions" he also stated that the notion of time travel was a "very serious question". Researcher Peter Millington from the University of Nottingham wrote a guest post for The Conversation, in an effort to get to the bottom of some of these questions.
Get a daily selection of our top stories based on your reading preferences. Furthermore, they are linked: the objective flow of time arises from the movement, through time, of the objective now from the past towards the future. The B-theory answers in the negative: while we certainly experience now as special, and time as flowing, the B-theory denies that what is going on here is that we are detecting objective features of reality in a way that corresponds transparently to how those features are in themselves.
The flow of time and the now are not objective features of reality; they are merely features of our experience. By combining answers to our first and second questions we arrive at positions on the metaphysics of time such as: [ 26 ].
So much for positions on time itself. Now for some views on temporal objects: objects that exist in and, in general, change over time. Three-dimensionalism is the view that persons, tables and other temporal objects are three-dimensional entities. On this view, what you see in the mirror is a whole person. On this view, persons and other temporal objects are wholly present at every time at which they exist.
Four-dimensionalism is the view that persons, tables and other temporal objects are four-dimensional entities, extending through three dimensions of space and one dimension of time. On this view, what you see in the mirror is not a whole person: it is just a three-dimensional temporal part of a person.
Tomorrow, when you look again, you will see a different such temporal part. Say that an object persists through time if it is around at some time and still around at a later time. Three- and four-dimensionalists agree that some objects persist, but they differ over how objects persist.
According to three-dimensionalists, objects persist by enduring : an object persists from t 1 to t 2 by being wholly present at t 1 and t 2 and every instant in between. According to four-dimensionalists, objects persist by perduring : an object persists from t 1 to t 2 by having temporal parts at t 1 and t 2 and every instant in between.
Perduring can be usefully compared with being extended in space: a road extends from Melbourne to Sydney not by being wholly located at every point in between, but by having a spatial part at every point in between. It is natural to combine three-dimensionalism with presentism and four-dimensionalism with the block universe view—but other combinations of views are certainly possible.
His main response is that while it would not be straightforwardly contradictory to suppose that the existence of an objective flow of time depends on the particular, contingent arrangement and motion of matter in the world, this would nevertheless be unsatisfactory. Some have objected to the claim that there is no objective flow of time in his model universe e.
Savitt ; see also Savitt Others have objected to the attempt to transfer conclusions about that model universe to our own universe e. Here is an argument: [ 29 ]. A fundamental requirement for the possibility of time travel is the existence of the destination of the journey. That is, a journey into the past or the future would have to presuppose that the past or future were somehow real.
Grey, , Dowe , —5 responds that the destination does not have to exist at the time of departure: it only has to exist at the time of arrival—and this is quite compatible with non-eternalist views. And Keller and Nelson , argue that time travel is compatible with presentism:. There is four-dimensional [i. But the presentist can have just the same patterns of events happening at just the same times. Or at least, it can be the case on the presentist model that the right sorts of events will happen, or did happen, or are happening, at the rights sorts of times.
Further contributions to the debate whether presentism—and other versions of the A-theory—are compatible with time travel include Monton , Daniels and Hall on the side of compatibility, and Miller , Slater , Miller and Hales on the side of incompatibility.
There is a superficial conflict between this principle of logic and the fact that things change. If Bill is at one time thin and at another time not so—and yet it is the very same person both times—it looks as though the very same entity Bill both possesses and fails to possess the property of being thin. Three-dimensionalists and four-dimensionalists respond to this problem in different ways.
According to the four-dimensionalist, what is thin is not Bill who is a four-dimensional entity but certain temporal parts of Bill; and what is not thin are other temporal parts of Bill. So there is no single entity that both possesses and fails to possess the property of being thin.
Three-dimensionalists have several options. Now consider the case of a time traveller Ben who encounters his younger self at time t. Suppose that the younger self is thin and the older self not so. The four-dimensionalist can accommodate this scenario easily. The three-dimensionalist, however, faces a problem.
One is to relativise properties not to external times but to personal times Horwich, , —5 ; another is to relativise properties to spatial locations as well as to times or simply to spacetime points. Sider , —6 criticises both options and others besides , concluding that time travel is incompatible with three-dimensionalism. We have seen arguments to the conclusions that time travel is impossible, improbable and inexplicable. If backwards time travel is ever going to occur, we would already have seen the time travellers—but we have seen none such.
First, it may be that time travel is very expensive, difficult or dangerous—or for some other reason quite rare—and that by the time it is available, our present period of history is insufficiently high on the list of interesting destinations.
Second, it may be—and indeed existing proposals in the physics literature have this feature—that backwards time travel works by creating a CTC that lies entirely in the future: in this case, backwards time travel becomes possible after the creation of the CTC, but travel to a time earlier than the time at which the CTC is created is not possible. What is Time Travel?
The Grandfather Paradox 2. Causation 3. Time and Change 4. Where are the Time Travellers? The most popular definition is the one given by Lewis , —6 : What is time travel? The Grandfather Paradox The most important objection to the logical possibility of backwards time travel is the so-called Grandfather paradox.
Hawking, , [ 14 ] The paradox comes in different forms. Smith, , 58 The idea is that backwards time travel is impossible because if it occurred, time travellers would attempt to do things such as kill their younger selves or their grandfathers etc. As Lewis puts it: Could a time traveler change the past? Horwich calls this the Principle of V-Correlation: if events of type A and B are associated with one another, then either there is always a chain of events between them…or else we find an earlier event of type C that links up with A and B by two such chains of events.
Horwich, , 97—8 For example, suppose that two students turn up to class wearing the same outfits. It is extremely unlikely that we should ever see extensive uncaused correlations. Therefore time travel is extremely unlikely to occur. Causation Backwards time travel scenarios give rise to interesting issues concerning causation. Consider two metaphysical questions: Are the past, present and future equally real? Is there an objective flow or passage of time, and an objective now?
Here is an argument: [ 29 ] A fundamental requirement for the possibility of time travel is the existence of the destination of the journey. Grey, , 56 Dowe , —5 responds that the destination does not have to exist at the time of departure: it only has to exist at the time of arrival—and this is quite compatible with non-eternalist views. And Keller and Nelson , argue that time travel is compatible with presentism: There is four-dimensional [i.
Carroll, John W. Silverstein, eds. Craig, William L. However, some scientists believe that traveling to the past is , in fact, theoretically possible, though impractical.
So for those hoping to see Earth a million years from now, scientists have good news. Go near the speed of light for a length of time—that I could calculate. Come back to Earth, and when you step out of your ship you will have aged perhaps one year while the Earth would have aged one million years. Live Science. Muller is optimistic that in the next few years LIGO will verify or falsify his theory.
But it is fascinating. Care about supporting clean energy adoption? Find out how much money and planet! By signing up through this link , Futurism. Image by Mindtrap. Share This Article.
0コメント