Upload
Login or register
x

Why we won't go back in time

Why we won't go back in time. The Bootstrap Paradox 
The term gets its name from Robert Heinlein’s short story “By His Bootstraps.” The phrase “pull yourself up

The Bootstrap Paradox


The term gets its name from Robert Heinlein’s short story “By His Bootstraps.” The phrase “pull yourself up by your bootstraps” refers to a self-sustaining process that requires no external stimulus to exist.

Alternate history is a popular concept of time travel and centers on the premise of changing history, whether accidentally or deliberately, while traveling back through it. One counter to this is the claim that any change a time traveler makes to history is precisely what was always supposed to happen (see #3).



But an aspect of the paradox that this counterargument does not address is the simple fact that any object traveling through time is itself aging normally. A person cannot travel faster than light in order to remain forever young; he may return to Earth after 10 years while Earth has aged 1,000, but he is still 10 years older, and eventually will die. The same goes for inanimate objects.

Say you misplace your Oscar acceptance speech, so you get in your time machine and travel back 30 minutes to a time when you still know where the sheet of paper is, retrieve it, and return to the future in the nick of time to deliver it for your “Revenant” performance. This is #3 on this list. 



But to the point: any object traveling through time, for the duration of the trip, no longer impresses itself on history. After 100 million years, that sheet of paper has worn to dust, as has the traveler. But the show must go on, and the Oscar goes to the same person, who now accepts it without the speech, because it no longer exists outside history to return to him in the future.

Now let’s consider the concept of information itself traveling back through history. Say you invent the time machine and use it to travel back 1,000 years. You share the knowledge of time travel with the people of that time, and they use it to invent the time machine. 1,000 years later, you invent the time machine, go back in time, and so on.

Now we have a problem: since there cannot be more than one origin of something, the invention of time travel effectively has none, and this application is just as undefinable as dividing by zero.




Why we won't go back in time. The Bootstrap Paradox 
The term gets its name from Robert Heinlein’s short story “By His Bootstraps.” The phrase “pull yourself up

Weak Cosmic Censorship Hypothesis

Stephen Hawking has spent his career working with black holes, and most of what we know about them is based on his work. The surface of a black hole is the event horizon, and once any object crosses this and enters the hole, it no longer exists in our spacetime continuum. It is drawn by extreme gravity into an infinitely thin strand of energy called a singularity.



Hawking’s work theorizes that only the terrific energy of a black hole can create a singularity. The weak cosmic censorship hypothesis asserts that there can be no singularity unhidden by a black hole, and thus, no singularity can ever be observed. The singularity is a major talking point of cosmology, because one theory of black holes paints them as gravitational pulls so strong that they impart faster-than-light speed to any object entering them. The singularity is the engine of a black hole’s gravity.



So if a spacecraft wanted to break the light barrier, it would need only to travel through a black hole, and upon emergence from the other side would still be traveling at this speed – namely, jump-starting a spacecraft past light speed so it can return to Earth at some point in the past.



But no object can survive a black hole’s singularity. Here, matter may actually be destroyed, apparently violating the law of conservation of mass. Hence, until singularities are proven to exist outside black holes, this method of traveling into the past is impossible.




Why we won't go back in time. The Bootstrap Paradox 
The term gets its name from Robert Heinlein’s short story “By His Bootstraps.” The phrase “pull yourself up

The Chronology Protection Conjecture

This one was dreamed up by Hawking himself, and there is a LOT of mathematics without numbers involved in it. In a nutshell, the conjecture requires that there be no such thing as a closed timelike curve. A CTC is the closed path of any object as it travels through 4-dimensional spacetime; if the path brings the object back to its starting point, the path is said to be closed.

No mathematical theory can yet predict if CTCs exist. If their existence is demonstrated, Hawking’s conjecture is demonstrably false, and travel into the past may be possible, probably via the next entry. If CTCs do not exist, then the conjecture is true, and “historians throughout the Universe are protected,” as Hawking says.



Our most immediate chance of discovering whether CTCs exist lies in quantum gravity, the branch of mathematics devoted to combining all four forces of the Universe into a single blueprint that can describe all physical laws on both the macroscopic and subatomic scales. The four forces include: the weak force, which holds electrons in orbit around nuclei, initiates hydrogen fusion in stars, and causes the radioactive decay of all subatomic particles; the strong force, which holds protons and neutrons together as nuclei; electromagnetism; and gravity. The General Theory of Relativity reconciles all but electromagnetism; quantum gravity, using a different approach, reconciles all but gravity. Until quantum gravity is fully explored, CTCs can only be hypothesized, and in their absence, traveling into the past cannot be done.




Why we won't go back in time. The Bootstrap Paradox 
The term gets its name from Robert Heinlein’s short story “By His Bootstraps.” The phrase “pull yourself up

Wormholes Disobey the Laws of Physics

All our understanding of time travel is based on what we know of the physical properties and interactions of the Universe. We have devised a branch of mathematics currently separate from physics to describe the laws of physics on a microscopic scale, and we call it quantum physics. This branch strongly theorizes the existence of Einstein-Rosen Bridges, named after the two scientists most responsible for our understanding of them. 

They are more popularly called wormholes, and they are holes that have ripped through the fabric of spacetime. If we could make use of them, the shortest distance between two points would no longer be a straight line but zero, caused by puncturing spacetime at the point of origin and at the point of destination, just like poking holes through a sheet of paper; then spacetime is effectively folded until the two points overlap, and the traveler passes through from A to B, and spacetime is unfolded to its original state. No physical movement occurs, but the destination may be at the other end of the known Universe, and the spacecraft would have neither approached, nor surpassed the speed of light, but simply teleported.

This seems to allow the possibility of travel into the past by avoiding the speed of light altogether, but what it does not account for is what goes on inside a wormhole. Physics has no idea, except to say that the laws of physics do not exist as we know them, or do not exist at all, inside wormholes. If we attempt to comprehend travel through wormholes in our terms of physics, then we are not addressing the issue to begin with, and have not yet left square one.




Why we won't go back in time. The Bootstrap Paradox 
The term gets its name from Robert Heinlein’s short story “By His Bootstraps.” The phrase “pull yourself up

No Tourists from the Future

Let’s take a short respite from the math. A theory held firmly by hundreds in the higher mathematics community, including Stephen Hawking, is that we already have verifiable proof that there can be no faster-than-light travel: there is no one from the future walking among us right now, at least as far as we know. To this end, meetings have been scheduled and attended by academics and plain old fans of science fiction, in which they sit and converse on the subject while waiting for visitors from the future to show up at the meetings. The idea is that in the future, people will know of these meetings in the same way that we know about WWII; it’s history to us. So if time travel should ever become reality, the travelers ought fairly to return to waiting people in the present and prove it.

So far, of course, this does not appear to have happened, and since we speak here in terms of the entirety of the future from now until the end of time, there should be quite a lot of travelers from many points throughout the future showing up at many points throughout their past. A fun criticism of this is the question, “Why in the world would anyone want to visit our time? 1 September 1939 makes sense, but today? If they were to warn of us something, what would it be? Would they return with some brilliant philosophy about how to effect real world peace?

Imagine: you can travel to any point in the past you like. What would you like to see? 90% or more of prospective travelers would like to see if Jesus Christ really existed. But would you take it upon yourself to return to a few weeks ago and avert the imminent terrorist attack in Paris, France? No one did.


Why we won't go back in time. The Bootstrap Paradox 
The term gets its name from Robert Heinlein’s short story “By His Bootstraps.” The phrase “pull yourself up

The Twin Paradox

This paradox deals more properly with travel into the future. It involves two newborn, identical twins, one who stays on Earth, and one who travels to Proxima Centauri, the nearest star, 4 light years away. If the spacecraft travels at 80% the speed of light, which amusingly seems more realistic, the round trip will take 10 years. That means the twin on Earth will be 10 years old when his brother returns. 



But on the spacecraft, the crew observes Promixa Centauri and Earth also moving with relation to the craft, and this causes Points A and B to shorten to a distance of 2.4 light years, not 4. Each leg of the journey will take 2.4 light years divided by the speed, 80% of the speed of light, for a duration of 3 years one way, 6 round trip. Thus, the twin onboard will have aged 6 years in the same relative span of time. This much is not logically impossible.

What is impossible is the effect of one twin traveling 101% or more of the speed of light. This would, at least according to this scenario as we understand it, cause him to travel into the past and cease to exist, i.e. disappear from onboard, and not return to his brother on Earth.


Why we won't go back in time. The Bootstrap Paradox 
The term gets its name from Robert Heinlein’s short story “By His Bootstraps.” The phrase “pull yourself up

E = mc²

The most famous equation in the history of mathematics describes the relationship of energy and mass. In 1942, it was notoriously seized upon as a great idea for a powerful new weapon. Einstein had no idea it could be used to build a bigger, better bomb, and wept when Enrico Fermi and Robert Oppenheimer explained what was going on at Oak Ridge, Tennessee.

Aside from explaining how much energy is contained in matter of any size, it also provides an exploration into what happens to mass when it travels faster. The faster something travels, the more energy is required to sustain its travel. As an object approaches the speed of light, it approaches infinite mass, and thus requires infinite energy to continue propelling it forward.



This does not prohibit traveling into the future, since all an object has to do is approach the light barrier. You approach it when you walk into the kitchen to get a beer. The distance into the future you have traveled is too insignificant to matter. But technically you gain an equally insignificant amount of mass. The energy required to propel a large object, like a spacecraft, any meaningful distance into the future, as that meaning relates to our frame of reference, would be greater than or equal to the energy currently in VY Canis Majoris, the largest star we know of. 



But to break the light barrier would cause the traveler to go into the past, and this would require infinite, and then greater than infinite, energy. This is impossible to achieve.




Why we won't go back in time. The Bootstrap Paradox 
The term gets its name from Robert Heinlein’s short story “By His Bootstraps.” The phrase “pull yourself up

Temporal Causality Loop

This is a paradox as well, and deals with one specific scenario: the invention of the first time machine. The inventor travels back in time in an effort to make his grandfather and grandmother fall in love, only to accidentally kill his grandfather (see #2). Now, desperate to exist in the future, he sleeps with his future grandmother and fathers his own father, thus enabling himself, in the future, to travel back in time and father his father again.



This paradox is illogical because it describes an effect in the future occurring before its cause in the past. Suppose you were to travel back in time to before the Big Bang, somehow cause the Big Bang and thus create the Universe. In terms of fate, this would happen in order to enable you, 13.5 billion years later, to invent the time machine and travel back to create the Universe so the time machine could be invented. It is fundamentally insensible.




Why we won't go back in time. The Bootstrap Paradox 
The term gets its name from Robert Heinlein’s short story “By His Bootstraps.” The phrase “pull yourself up

Temporal Paradox

This is essentially the negative version of #3, and is also called the Grandfather Paradox. Traveling into the past must be logically impossible because it would enable you to go back in time and kill yourself. But if you die, how will you travel into the past from the future to kill yourself? Critics, especially science fiction fans, are quick to point out that our understanding of mathematics expands every day thanks to people like Newton, Einstein, Hawking, and Michio Kaku, and with it comes an expanded understanding of the logic involved in time travel scenarios.



The best current counter to the temporal paradox is the Multiverse, which describes an infinite number of yous doing an infinite number of things at an infinite number of points throughout your life. You may be stabbed in a bar fight at 100 years old in another Universe, but die of cancer as a child in this one. Imagine a Universe without Imgur. Our current understandings of quantum mechanics and quantum physics lends strong credence to the possibility that the Multiverse is a reality. It would negate the temporal paradox, and several others, allowing you a future after you have killed yourself. But there is still no fully formed theory of the Multiverse’s existence, and until there is, this paradox stands.




Why we won't go back in time. The Bootstrap Paradox 
The term gets its name from Robert Heinlein’s short story “By His Bootstraps.” The phrase “pull yourself up

No Unified Field Theory

Frankly, all the previous entries are based more in terms of logic than in pure mathematics, precisely we can only surmise everything related to time travel according to our very superficial comprehension of it. Albert Einstein’s life work centered on what we now call Relativity. He postulated two theories of it, but the next step, an infinitely more important one, is to unify the General Theory of Relativity with electromagnetism. Einstein died working on this, and today’s eggheads have taken only baby steps forward. The “highest” form of mathematics to date is called “M Theory,” which is not even fully described yet. It’s practically a religion to mathematicians, because so little is understood about it that some don’t believe in it. 



It identifies 11 dimensions in the Universe, not just 4, and its champions expect that it can unite the 5 differing string theories that preceded it, and take what may be the only step left beyond: a unification of the physical properties and laws of all 4 forces of the Universe. M Theory seeks a common ground between General Relativity and Quantum Gravity with the goal of combining all 4. To do so is to take a mathematical look at how the Universe appeared, and how it acted, when it was still an infinitely small point packing all the matter and energy that exist in it today. To comprehend such physics would enable a mathematical comprehension of how to manipulate spacetime itself and pre-vert to a time in the future or revert to a time in the past. Until someone unifies all 4 forces into a single physical quantity with a value for each point in spacetime, we aren’t going any-when.

listverse.com/2012/11/25/top-10-reasons-youll-never-go-back-in-time/

+85
Views: 8442
Favorited: 47
Submitted: 01/07/2016
Share On Facebook
submit to reddit +Favorite Subscribe to ikoropant

Comments(29):

Leave a comment Refresh Comments Show GIFs
Anonymous comments allowed.
29 comments displayed.
User avatar #3 - brlol (01/07/2016) [-]
The Twin Paradox

Why travelling on 101% of the speed of light would cause someone to travel into the past and cease to exist? I don't get it.

Also, great post op.
User avatar #8 to #3 - armwulf (01/07/2016) [-]
The theory is that we are all constantly moving at the same speed
This speed is a combination of how quickly we move through space, and how quickly we move through time.
The faster you move through time, the slower you move through space
The faster you move through space, the slower you move through time
This is to keep said speed constant

LIGHT, is said to be the fastest possible. That constant "Speed" we all move at, is the speed of light. Light speed is entirely moving through space, not at all through time.
So, if you were to move FASTER than light, the axis would bend backwards on itself and you'd hit the negative numbers- BACKWARDS through time!


But why the theory that we all move at a constant speed?
Say you have a sensor that measures the speed of light.
It measures a beam of light, produces the speed
But the speed of light is constant.... what if you move the light TOWARDS the sensor?
You might think the speed you move the light source is added to the speed of light- but this doesn't happen. The speed of light is constant. Even if you're moving towards it!

It's hard to wrap your head around, but currently, the best explanation is that light doesn't move through time. Only space. That warping allows it to have this property.
User avatar #17 to #8 - bucketofhurt (01/08/2016) [-]
If I travel in a space ship at 30% of c. At what speed will a photon travel from my head- or backlights; forwards or backwards? Is c relative to me?

Then I launch off in the opposite direction with a smaller ship. Say I slowly accelerate to 1c relative to the previous vessel. (70% or c opposite direction). NOW what speed will the photons have in either direction relative to me or the previous vessel? Where is the reference point in the universe when it comes to the absolute value c?
User avatar #18 to #17 - bucketofhurt (01/08/2016) [-]
Nvm, I think I got it now.
#28 to #17 - lallram (01/08/2016) [-]
GIF
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson%E2%80%93Morley_experiment

there is no universal Frame of reference, no stationary space, to tell us whether we are moveing towards a ball or the ball towards us (which implies that both occurences are the exact same). The gif below is a little insight into the MichelsonMorley experiment, which should prove wheter there is such a universal frame of reference. the coloured dots are photons, that split at a semipermeable mirror and then get reflected back by two normal mirrors. In fig. a the ?breadboard? (goolgle translation is a bitch, I mean uhh experimental setup) is positioned parallel to the earths axis of movement, in fig. b it is positioned in a 90° anlge. Now if there were a universal frame of reference fig. b would be correct, the light waves would get amplified/canceled. But since there have been no different outcomes in this experiment, independant of the orientation we can now for sure say that there is nouniversal rame of refernece, but only the relative frames of reference.

tldr; click the link if you're interested in stuff like this^^
User avatar #29 to #28 - bucketofhurt (01/08/2016) [-]
Yeah, thanks

I just remembered some high school physics as I wrote the previous comment. I remembered an experiment very similar to this. It's a good gif. I've only been doing newton's laws and fluidmechanics/thermodynamics after high school, so it needed som refreshing!
User avatar #12 to #8 - brlol (01/08/2016) [-]
I get it now, thanks for the explanation.
User avatar #26 to #8 - sinikko ONLINE (01/08/2016) [-]
"Light speed is entirely moving through space, not at all through time. "

Aha? And why do people think that?
I don't get why the fact that light always travels at the same speed (meaning, you can't measure light slow down/accelerate) means that it doesn't move through time. It only says how fast it moves through space, how would you even measure it's move through time.
User avatar #27 to #26 - armwulf (01/08/2016) [-]
Thaaaaaaat is where I get lost as well, but essentially, the speed of light is constant even if you're moving towards or away from the source. The best explanation we have for that is Einstein's theory of relativity as I have described to the best of my understanding.
#14 - anon (01/08/2016) [-]
A brilliant read if you want your mind blown
User avatar #20 to #14 - kriml (01/08/2016) [-]
And what should I read if i want my dick blown?
#10 - Stevethewizard (01/08/2016) [-]
The "No tourists" theory doesn't take into account one possibility: time travelers could be incredibly stupid. People from the future are just that: people. The same people that are currently giving Kanye West attention, that think 50 Shades of Grey is well written and not smut, and that actually believe Duck Dynasty is unscripted.
People generally aren't smart. Despite what you may think it says in the history books, they also weren't smart. And I have no doubt that they will never be smart. Sure, our technology may advance, and our ability to operate said technology will increase to match, but most people have no idea how the technology works, and they likely never will.
tl;dr: People aren't smart. Future tourists with time travel devices will likely act exactly like tourists do today, and they won't be any smarter or more aware of history than the average person today.
#15 to #10 - anon (01/08/2016) [-]
Except there will absolutely still be academics in the future who would leap at the chance to actually travel back in time. The no tourists paradox doesn't mean tourists in the sense of 'Gee honey, lets go to the Bahamas this summer' it just means anybody travelling from the future to our time.
User avatar #6 - armwulf (01/07/2016) [-]
I can explain the temporal causality loop through multiverse theory
Consider a timeline, flat, two dimensional. It assumes there is one value on the Z axis (Towards the viewer)
So, when you draw the "Loop", you see a perfect circle that is completely illogical. It has no start or finish. It's impossible.
But, if you expand it to multiple timelines- you end up with a spiral.
Person in universe A travels to universe B, killing Grandfather "B". He then sires Father "B". Child "B" then continues this cycle in universe "C".
With an infinite number of universes, there will always be a universe before and after your own, in which another version of yourself will exist.

Or, in Doctor who's words, a woven wibbly wobbly timey wimey rug, rather than fabric of time.
#5 - angelious (01/07/2016) [-]
correct me if im wrong, but isnt it so that they dont even know what the eleventh dimension would hold? since the ninth or tenth dimension is already supposedly holding in every possible combination of everything there could possibly exist?
#2 - lean (01/07/2016) [-]
I've always wondered: in a future where we have invented faster than light technology and who knows what else, why would coming back to 2015 or whatever particular date they have meetings be even close to someone's list? Who knows, by that time we may be spread out amongst the stars, with far more interesting historical sites to visit. I sure wouldn't bother visiting a hotel banquet room with a half dozen sweaty fat dudes arguing about batman vs superman. Perhaps genghis khan was a time traveler, or maybe nostradamus. It could have been a number of important figures throughout history, and the thing is we wouldn't know along this time line.
Not to mention there have undoubtedly been a bunch of nut jobs claiming to be from the future before. I'll hold on to my hopes, despite the reservations of Hawking. Brilliance doesn't make you infallible, and Einstein was famous for continually updating his theorems to account for ideas that may disprove them
User avatar #4 to #2 - angelious (01/07/2016) [-]
some of these time travel meeting things were created by extremely famous scientists or celebrities...i think mark twain held a couple of parties themed like this.
#25 - anon (01/08/2016) [-]
Iron Maiden - Caught Somewhere In Time (with lyrics) fitting music for those who like to listen while reading
User avatar #23 - palokomedios (01/08/2016) [-]
I just woke up and I didn't need to have my mind blown out the back of my skull. I'll come back when I'm fully awake. For now, thumbs.
#22 - windscrotum ONLINE (01/08/2016) [-]
There is no grandfather paradox. The scenario presupposes that the time traveler is able to kill his grandfather, when the fact that he exists proves that he never does. The bootstrap paradox doesn't contradict it's own conclusion in the way that the grandfather anecdote seems to, so it's really only a paradox if you consider it's conclusion strange or impossible, which I don't. Two attempts are made to disprove the bootstrap theory, and I can't understand the first one. The second one makes the same mistake by presupposing you could change history by traveling to a time that you didn't consequently arrive in before you traveled there, which would prevent it's cause, and be out of line with the concept of spacetime. This post inspired sparkling conversation rather than asserting a unique conclusion based on the arguments it presented. Fite me Ikoropant, you passively intellectual weenie whistler.
#21 - anon (01/08/2016) [-]
But what about honey?
People say that honey literally never expires.

If it really does age 16,000 years, that's no problem.
Shower past humans with bottles of honey.
User avatar #13 - Deavas (01/08/2016) [-]
what
how does going faster than light suddenly equal going backwards in time
User avatar #11 - admiralen (01/08/2016) [-]
Why is the multiverse theory still a thing?
There is literally nothing supporting it
Nothing in it makes any kind of sense
#16 to #11 - anon (01/08/2016) [-]
Nothing in theoretical physics makes any kind of sense.
User avatar #19 to #16 - admiralen (01/08/2016) [-]
Theres usually something backing a theory up though
#24 to #11 - windscrotum ONLINE (01/08/2016) [-]
The multiverse theory makes quantum mechanics feel less arbitrary, and gives ******** something awe-inspiring and meaningless to blither about. More interestingly, it serves as an intuitive rebuttal to humanity's nasty habit of assuming that all it sees is all there is, but we both know that Newton's flaming laser sword ******* obliterates that.
User avatar #9 - reloadedhamster (01/08/2016) [-]
Math is a human construct. An unfinished construct. So much exists that we dont know or dont have the mental capacity to fathom.
#7 - homestuckxplain (01/07/2016) [-]
GIF
I know who I want to be my Time player...
User avatar #1 - goldenslumbers ONLINE (01/07/2016) [-]
Pretty good infographic op
10/10
 Friends (0)