Time Travel: Positions of the Research – Conclusions
travel research facilitate an everlasting (virtual) life?
to Albert Einstein, time is relative. This means that two different, moving observers can perceive the length of a period of time between the same events differently. With time theory, the conceptual models of the special and the general theory of relativity
can be distinguished from one another. The aforementioned time-perception model is assigned to the special theory of relativity. The general theory of relativity deals with accelerated systems and defines gravitation as a curvature of space and time. The curvature
results from the existence of masses. Kurt Gödel invented the world formula for time travel on the basis of Einstein's theory of relativity. Stephen Hawking fluctuates between the feasibility of time travel and the negation
thereof. Roy Kerr tried to prove the existence of black holes, while Kip Thorne reflects how a wormhole must be designed in order to travel through time. Physicists, Amos Ori and Ronald L. Mallett, introduce current visions of a time machine.
A question arises from the basis of time travel philosophy, including, as a result of the research with the LHC (Large Hadron Collider) at CERN (Conseil Européen pour la Recherche Nucléaire) in Switzerland, to
what extent is time travel feasible and what factors related to neurological and human consciousness are relevant in the context of the problematic of causality. As a result, it is worthwhile to consider how time travel research could allow an eternal (virtual)
2. The Paradox Problem
To travel to a time in the future, for example, we would
have to move with 99.9 cycles per centum of the speed of light. The theory of relativity theoretically allows traveling into the future. If an astronaut journeys away from the earth "time traveler" in a space vehicle at 99.999999 percent of the speed of light
for one year and finally flies back to earth at the same speed, his clock would run more slowly in relation to a clock left back on earth. Upon his return (of course, problematic in this case is the influence of the change in direction at the turning point),
the astronaut would have aged by two years due to the time dilation, while 14,000 years would have passed on earth. For the astronaut, this would mean that he, as seen from his perspective, is landing on the Earth of the future. However, according to Einstein,
there is no body that can move so fast. The special theory of relativity and the curved space time primarily show that time travel does not work. For example, according to Stephen Hawking, traveling into the past is thus thwarted, as the time paradox does
not allow for it. Imagine, the descendant of an assassin travels into the past to the time before his birth in order to liquidate his father and thus undo the assassination. It would follow that the assassin could not have fathered a son after being eliminated
from him and that no son may exist who has killed his creator in the past. Therefore, Hawking confirms the hypothesis of chronology protection, which states that macroscopic bodies that are larger
than 0.01 mm, according to the laws of nature, cannot carry information into the past. However, according to Hawking ten years later, time travel could theoretically (regardless of chronology protection theory) be possible
if space time were curved so strongly that a time jump may be performed.6
3. Albert Einstein and Kurt Gödel:
Static or Rotating Universe?
3.1 Einstein – Gödel: Characteristics
and Gödel taught at Princeton. Gödel was 27 years younger than Einstein and a gifted mathematician. Now, it is worthwhile, or it is at least enriching from a human perspective, to compare the two characters, Einstein and (the long forgotten, but
now currently re-appearing into public consciousness) Gödel. The personality structure of both, when set in relation to one another, is indirectly chiastic. This means that Einstein's inner being corresponded to Gödel's outer being and that Gödel's
inner being corresponded to Einstein's outer being. While Einstein, who was musically talented and played the violin in his spare time with virtuosity, was a follower of Mozart and Brahms, Gödel preferred percussive music and Mickey Mouse. Externally,
however, Einstein did not exactly concern himself with conventions. He wore baggy old pants, a similar looking sweater and put his feet in his shoes without socks. Going to the hairdresser was, for Einstein, as we know from the pictures, just not one of his
passions. Gödel, however, was always, even in summer, wrapped in properly fitting suits, coats and scarves; his hair was cut to a military length, even though he was anything but militaristic. Gödel was a thin and largely humorless ascetic, whereas
Einstein was well fed and funny with eyes full with the curiosity of a child. While Gödel exhibited a shrill giggle when he thought something as funny (e.g. Mickey Mouse), Einstein laughed out voluminously from the depths of his belly. Einstein also maintained
that one day, in his last hour, he would bite the dust with minimal medical care and until then, he would remain (correspondingly to his nefarious soul) "hell-bent" on sinning by smoking like a chimney, slaving away like a plow horse and indiscriminately stuffing
himself with every culinary delights. Contrarily, Gödel maintained a strict diet, mainly limiting himself to potatoes and dairy products. Because he had a fear of being poisoned, his wife Adele had always first tasted his food for him. But Einstein considered
Gödel's thinking to be so astute, profound and original that he once remarked that he was only going up to the institute "to have the privilege of walking home with Gödel."
3.2 Einstein – Gödel: The Scientific Gap
As Einstein's now scientific collaborator at Princeton, the brilliant century
mathematician, Kurt Gödel, dealt with the theory of relativity, which resulted in the conclusion that time travel is possible, provided that masses in space time rotate in such a way that time loops are formed, swirls, so to speak, that form circles on
which we could travel to any time of the past with spaceships that travel at the speed of light. Gödel gave Einstein a mathematical time travel formula for his 70th birthday, whose foundation defines the Gödel Universe.
These considerations resulted from the basis of Einstein's equations in the general theory of relativity. Gödel's formula and thus the possibility of time travel gave way to a problematic
of causality attributable to paradoxes, which Einstein immediately anticipated, and unsettled him so much that he quickly forgot the formula. Nevertheless, Einstein insisted on contradicting his scientific friend, Gödel, (and thus to himself calm) by
arguing that the universe was static and would, according to the Big Bang theory (before and after Einstein removed the Einstein's Constant), always expand and that it does not rotate. Consequently, Gödel's formula was ineffective as its prerequisite
was a rotating universe. But this perspective of Einstein is exactly as hypothetical of a conclusion as Gödel's, meaning that neither the one nor the other can be proven.
the factor of unprovability did not rattle Gödel's self-conception in the least. Finally, he already (1931) had a successful bravura performance many years prior in quickly and entirely flipping Hilbert's formalism on its head. Using complicated mathematical
auspices Gödel formulated the incompleteness theorem. This proposition states that the truth is not bound to its provability by mathematical propositions. How is this perspective to be linguistically and intellectually
understood or justified? In the research to date, we have made little effort to answer this question accurately and thus concretely. For example, it is abstractly formulated that mathematical theory contains propositions that are true, although they cannot
be proven. Gödel presented the unprovability of a "true" mathematical proposition with mathematical rigor. What does that mean concretely? If the logic of knowledge is "waterproof" and it moves through a non-provable variant, it does not necessarily assert
that the knowledge is incorrect, seeing as the unprovability its scope is not proven. Consequently, a potentially imaginary truth is also a truth. Pending clarification of the circumstances, as a partial truth, the imaginary truth is still a truth, albeit
incomplete. Philosophically, this means that human knowledge has no limit.
Roy Kerr: Rotating Black Holes
In 1963, Roy Kerr, a mathematician from New Zealand, attempted to prove the existence of rotating black holes on the basis of Einstein's equations. Instead of collapsing, they would develop into rotating circles consisting of neutrons. The centrifugal force resulting from the enormous speed of rotation would keep the black hole alive. Someone who would fly through this
circle or ring, the so-called "Stargate," would safely arrive in an alternate universe. With these considerations, however, Kerr struck down the problematic of matter, which was first differentiated in the reflection on potential wormholes.
5. Kip Thorne: On the Nature of Wormholes
Kip Thorne considers how a wormhole would have to be designed
in order to allow time travel into the past. At one end, the wormhole would have to spring around nearly at the speed of light. The other end would have to be fixed to a point in space. The moving end ages relatively slower
so that you can travel from the still fixed point of the wormhole into the past. He reflected that wormholes would have to have an exotic density, which consists of a negative energy that is not to be confused with the already producible antimatter.
The negative energy would have a negative weight on the scale. The surroundings of a black hole could serve, as Hawking suggests, to obtain this negative
energy, as particles from quantum effects arise in this area that correspond to the desired exotic (negative) matter. However, as they disappear immediately after their formation due to the absorbing gravitational pull, these particles would have to be skimmed
off shortly before absorption so as to obtain the negative energy. By way of such measures, we could build, stabilize and thus realize a hitherto purely hypothetically existing wormhole. In contrast to the black hole, this would have the advantage that it
would transmit macroscopic matter of any weight, instead of swallowing it or destroy it.
In this way, a four-dimensional space hyperspace would be constructed that could shorten
huge distances of, for example, billions of light years to nothing. In this case, the fourth dimension is not the time, but, just as the third dimension becomes a space from six surfaces, the fourth dimension can be thought of as the constellation of the sum
of eight volumes. A distinction would then have to be made between overcoming the distance of routes and overcoming the barriers of time.
Thorne (unlike Kerr) is not mindful
of the possibility of rotating black holes. Thorne also does not assign any rotating character to the wormhole resulting, inter alia, form the black hole.
6. Alexander Shatskiy:
Identifiers of a Wormhole
Even if wormholes have yet to be discovered, physicists still presume that microscopic wormholes emerged from the Big Bang, which have then inflated
into huge hoses. Specialized physicist could differentiate such wormholes from black holes. In 2007, for example, Alexander Shatskiy calculated clear identifiers of a wormhole. He also suspected rotating wormholes. The difference
between black holes and wormholes can be witnessed from their effect on light. While a black hole treats light as a converging lens due to its high gravitational force, a wormhole scatters light. Beginning in 2016, the Russian space telescope, Millimetron,
is to be used to look for wormholes in the universe.
To illustrate the concept of wormhole, we can imagine an apple, with its two-dimensional surface, as a three-dimensional
universe. The worm can eat through the apple to reach the other side. Therefore, carved out by the worm, the wormhole is a path to another place or perhaps into another time. In reality, however, a wormhole would cut through as fast as lightning, making the
metaphor of the worm that eats its way through the apple spatially-dimensional conceivable, but not in the sense of time.
7. The Casimir Effect
In addition to the potential acquisition of negative energy by black holes, this energy, according to the Casimir effect, can also be obtained by means of two electric, power conductive plates. In 1948, he Dutch
physicist, Hendrik Casimir, positioned such plates parallel to each other at very small distance. Although no external forces act on the plates, the plates attract each other. Quantum field theory provides an explanation to this end. Since particles are continuously
produced and destroyed again in a vacuum, according to the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, the energy required for the generation of the particle can be borrowed quickly by releasing the energy via the destruction of the particle produced.
8. Amos Ori: Model for a Time Machine
Within the realm of current research, in 2007, the Israeli
physicist Amos Ori spoke out. He introduces a new theoretical model in the journal, "Physical Review." Although a blueprint for a time machine is missing, he still nevertheless thinks that he overcome hitherto existing problems
for time travel into the past.
In his theory, Ori also deals with the use of wormholes and arrives at the idiosyncratic realization that negative energy is not necessary to
stabilize the wormhole. To that end, he devises a universe that does not correspond our real, physical imagination and arrives at the same conclusion as Kurt Gödel decades earlier, favoring time loops as path for traveling through time. Then, the question
arises as to Ori's truly new approach to time travel theory and what function wormholes might have therein.
According to his theory, Amos Ori excludes wormholes for his purposes.
He refocuses that effort on obtaining negative energy and establishes (in principle, linking back to Gödel, but also to Hawking) that time loops must be created. It comes to follow that, in the extension to Einstein and Gödel, the question of whether
the universe is static or rotating appears to be nullified for Ori, as he targets the artificial creation of time circulation within space on earth. Ori describes a model of a time machine that is asymptotically flat and forms a hyper-surface. The time machine
itself is not consistent material, so no car that can be sat in or no apparatus that is operated with switches, buttons or touchscreens. The time machine itself is time. It consists of a vacuum and dust. Exotic energy is not required. However, not only dust
but also any other material can be used, provided it is sufficient to generate a specific space time curvature. To effect this curvature, large masses would have to be within the regional vicinity, for example, in this case, an artificially produced black
hole, or gravitational waves would have to affect the local space and curve with a corresponding strength.
9. The Problematic of Causality and the Problematic of Consciousness
The problematic of causality that arises from time travel into the past results from the paradoxes. The assassin paradox already listed as an example. Self-elimination is a risk of time
travel into the past. For example, if a human encounters his parents in the period before his own birth and pulls them apart or causes circumstances that trigger this process, he would have to reckon with the loss of the ego, that is to say, with the dissolution
of himself, provided that the developing timeline causes the conception and the birth of the time traveler not to occur. After such successful self-elimination, in turn, the time traveler in question no longer exists and thus cannot pull his parents apart
at the time before his conception. This, in turn, would mean that the time traveler is then indeed conceived and born and thus exists and can, in fact, pull his parents apart before his birth. This pattern would repeat onwards. This imaginary, repeatable cycle
describes the perfect paradox in infinitum.
Even more problematic is an encounter with oneself, the alter ego and thus also with his own ego, the ego ego. This raises the problematic
into the fundamental neurological ontological dimension, which was inferentially hardly considered in the prior research: If the time traveler were to meet himself in the past, there would be an automatic reaction of the alter ego in the past toward the ego
coming from the future, seen from the perspective of the one being visited, because I only come from the future from the perspective of my ego in the past, whereas I, the one who travels back in time, am from the present. The problematic occurs on the level
of consciousness. Who is the me that I visit in the past? If I, as a time traveler, influence and change the course of action and behavior in the originally intended timeline and the order of events by way of a conversation with myself in the past, I would
simultaneously have to remember myself and the new model of action (from the past) as a time traveler (from the future or present), since I am indeed myself. In the same way, in a conversation with myself, a state would inevitably have to eventuate that does
not allow for a double consciousness, but evokes a fusion of the levels of consciousness. That is to say, the ego of the past sees the ego from the future and simultaneously, the ego from the future sees the ego from the past. Since I only have one consciousness,
I see myself at the same time from two perspectives both doubled and as myself. This paradox is not hard to imagine but it is also, as the name suggests, inextricable. These thoughts could be taken further toward the question of how the ontological dimension
would function on the level of consciousness if I, the one visiting myself in the past, take the me from the past with me on a journey into another, different time in order to visit myself again. The three of "us" would then have one and the same consciousness
and after another journey, the four of us, then the five of us, etc. This stream could go on any number of times but in the end, it would only result in a soliloquy.
Cat and the Parallel Universe
If we now look at quantum theory and its ideas of the physics of gravitation, we supposedly reach new discoveries that seem to put the paradox
problem into perspective. According to quantum theory, an object can exist simultaneously in different rooms. This phenomenon is known as the so-called Schrödinger Cat, which can exist both dead and alive at the same
time. How can this effect be described in practice? Time travel would lead to the creation of a parallel universe. We could, for example, travel back to the time of the assassination of J.F. Kennedy and save him, but the historic Kennedy in the real world
would still be dead. The Kennedy in the parallel world would continue to exist. The hook of this new (but familiar) cognitive world is that Schrödinger relies on quantum mechanics alone and finds that an electron, in compliance with the superposition
state, can simultaneously be in two different states. And this state results from measurability. This state is not necessarily actually perceived from the perspective of the object. If that now means that the same object can be measured in two different states,
it does not, however, mean that the object perceives this state. Since objects are made up of electrons, this experiment can therefore affect a cat that, however, cannot be aware of the state of its death anyway. Regardless of that (and thinking from that
point outwards), consciousness comes into question again. Can you compare an unconscious electron with the consciousness, for example, of a human? That human would therefore indeed have to understand one consciousness that is simultaneously found in two different
states, because he only has one consciousness. Clones are not produced in the superposition. The process has neither to do with time travel nor with gravitation.
L. Mallett: Limited-Time Travel into the Past
Einstein discovered that the faster a gravitational field is approached, the more slowly time passes. Therefore, time is not
a constant. The theoretical model for time travel was born. The theory was subjected to a practical test. In 1971, one atomic clock was positioned in a passenger jet and another remained on the earth. The jet flew eastwards around the world. When comparing
the atomic clocks after 65 hours, it turned out that the clock in the airplane ran more slowly by 59 billionths of a second.
The US American physicist, Ronald L. Mallett, stated in 2007 that if you now want to now go back in time, you would have to fly in a westerly direction. According to Einstein, however, traveling into the past is not possible by traveling with excessive speed, rather via
the rotation of space time. From the necessary distortion of space time, closed loops would result from black holes, wormholes or strings. Since the necessary enormous masses, according Mallett, are not controllable, a new idea would have to be thought of
based on Einstein's idea of curving energy in order to allow for traveling into the past. Circulating light is therefore the key to traveling through time. Mallett constructed a time machine in his bedroom; at this point, his marriage had broken apart. But
it was merely a miniature construct. With research funds amounting to $250,000.00, according to Mallett, it would be possible to build a light tower that would be five feet high and made of light. The walls of each floor would be made out of four laser beams.
As a test, the physicist planed to launch a neutron in the circulating cylinder. If it were to change direction, it would prove the rotation of space. Contrary to his critics, who express
that there would not be a sufficient amount of useable laser power in order to spin time, the physics professor, Mallett, advocates the view that it is only a matter of time until this problem is solved mathematically. Additionally, no one has been able to
mathematically disprove his mathematical computation theory.
However, there is a hook to this potential time machine. It is impossible to travel to a time before the existence
of the functioning time machine, as "the time loops are in fact only formed when the engine is actuated. Let's say I turn it on now and let it run for ten years. If I then go into the time machine, I can travel back in time, but not further than this exact
12. Traveling into the Future
According to the
latest research, traveling in the future becomes seemingly easier at first. The LHC (Large Hadron Collider), which is located in the research center at CERN, is intended to make traveling into the future closer to a reality. A particle accelerator can launch
particles at each other. Russian researchers calculated that the LHC could put reality into question. That means that the particle accelerator is capable of producing a crack in the tissue of reality. Accordingly equipped with technology, humans could travel
into the future through a gate. The problematic of causality would not come into play, unless one travels into the future that lies before their future.
What concrete function does the acceleration of particles have? The aim of the LHC research is to first produce a microscopic black hole. As a result, the formation of wormholes is possible. Thus, a journey through time would be conceivable as a whole.
This could allow the universe and its beginning to be explored, provided that the time traveler does not explode with the Big Bang, in the event that he is traveling to this time sphere. We are currently still satisfied with the recreation of the premises
for the Big Bang, out of which this shall result, according to the newspapers. Furthermore, microscopic black holes are generated that then fizzle out again harmlessly, to everyone's reassurance.
The idea of time traveling into the future is, however, causally-intellectually problematic. Stephen Hawking expressed that if it were possible, we would already meet time tourists from the future in our time. This type of reasoning can,
however, be quickly pushed to the side, which has still not yet been attempted. Here is my attempt: 1. If there were travelers from the future in our time, they would not necessarily make themselves recognizable in order not to risk jeopardizing the principle
of causality or, to put it another way, if they were to still show themselves, it would not necessarily mean that we would witness them in their role as time travelers. 2. The possibility of traveling into the future does not mean that there is a future, or
that there is a future, which contains a human environment or an environment of living beings at all. That is to say, the future has not happened yet. 3. The problematic of consciousness, principally neglected in research, arises once again, although (compared
to above) it varies. If there is a space with humans in the future, e.g. you in 20 years, "x" number of infinitely many ego-consciousnesses of your ego would have to exist on the time curve that think and act on their own account, but you only acutely perceive
your consciousness in this moment.
13. From Time Travel to an Eternal (Virtual) Life
photons can be beamed with the help of the entanglement that results from quantum physics for the purpose of the teleportation of light into the future. This can be accomplished by measuring two particles of light. Any manipulation of one particle onto another
has an effect, regardless of how far away it is. The assimilated light particles are then equal and, at the same time, independent from one another. How should this be practically imagined in detail? Firstly, it should be noted that light particles are able
to be teleported, even outside the laboratory, over greater distances. Viennese scientists teleported quantum states of photons through a fiber optic cable under the Danube over a distance of 600 meters with this method. In the British science journal, "Nature,"
this successful experiment was hailed as a feat. It is not the particles themselves that are teleported, but their quantum states, i.e. their information. Thus, an exact copy of the source is created. Not only photons, but
also atoms can be teleported that way. In this manner, for example, the data of a computer can change from output to the input of another in a flash.
Abstracted and in lame
comparison, a development or variation to the Schrödinger variant that resulted from his time research could be seen in this physical power. But could the end of our life in this world be transformed into a virtual life in a cybernetic space with the
help of photon research? If atoms can be teleported, it would also have to be possible to transport neuronal brain particles into a virtual space. You can already take on the role of different virtual characters and stereotypes in today's world. Of course,
for the living, our consciousness remains outside of the virtual world, that is to say, in ourselves when we sit in front of the PC playing as the hero or the villain in a computer game.
In paralysis research, experiments with paralytics have already been carried out, who could move a finger on a paralyzed hand solely on the basis of their thoughts via a microchip placed on their brain. You can also move and position the cursor on the
computer screen just with the power of thought. The cursor receives the pulse directly from the brain connected to the computer.
or objects cannot be teleported, but atoms and quantum states can be. Since the brain primarily functions due to the interaction of neurons that are highly interconnected, as well as via their electrical impulses, it would be conceivable, in my perspective,
to copy neuron particles with self-consciousness over the particle entanglement, thus also allowing their quantum states to be teleported. The copy sent off becomes the original in another location by way of forwarding the source. To what extent a human's
entire consciousness and neurons, including those in which our memories are stored, can be entirely teleported is something mathematical geniuses would like to find out. The solution to this possibility is likely to be driven by a close collaboration between
theoretical and experimental physics with computer science and medicine. A correspondingly high quantum of research funds would have to be available. It's your turn now, Bill Gates!
Even during his lifetime, the human could live an eternal life in virtual space and choose a virtual body with which he could travel into the real world as a hologram. The spirit that exists in the virtual afterlife could potentially be teleported into
a microchip and then implanted into a bionic or hybrid body in this world. However, in this case, new worlds would need to be developed in the universe in order to defeat the exploding population density on earth. It must be noted that this type of bionic
or hybrid being does not necessarily needed oxygen.
The development of
time travel research in the last century and at the beginning of this century has shown that constructing time machines are possible based on Einstein's theory of relativity. Only the question of their stability is still open. From the side where Mallett stands,
however, you can only travel so far back into the past to the point when the time machine was created. The problematic of causality cannot be avoided via the version of possible parallel universes. In particular, the problematic of consciousness, of ego and
alter ego, which has not yet been discussed in research as it is in this essay, raises new questions in the line of paradoxes. Time travel is nevertheless conceivable. The problem, however, is the assumption that traveling into the future is possible, since
we can presume, as stated, that our future has not yet taken place. As a result of time travel research, an eternal virtual life comes into reach, but the option of particle entanglement even makes an eternal life in this world a realistic potential. Only
the technology is not there yet.