ChapterPDF Available

Paradoxes of Time Travel: The Uncertainty Principle, Wave Function, Probability, Entanglement, Quantum Physics, Multiple Worlds

Authors:

Abstract

In quantum mechanics the cosmos as a whole can be likened to a quantum continuum which is continually in flux and is thus indeterminate except at the moment of perception and registration by an observing consciousness or measuring apparatus. Because of this continual fluctuation and the limitations of conscious perceptual capacities and through a phenomenon known as "entanglement," it is only possible to make predictions about what may be observed; and these predictions can only be based on probabilities and a probability distribution. When quantum mechanics are applied to the concept of "time" then what is conceptualized as "past" "present" and "future" is also best described in terms of probabilities. Time is uncertain and not deterministic. Causes may occur simultaneously with or even after effects become effects, as demonstrated by entanglement. The experience of time or the existence of an object in space, are also manifestations of the wave function. As the wave propagates through space it effects the continuum both locally and at a distance simultaneously as demonstrated by entanglement, where even choices made in the future can effect the present. If time has a wave function, then the present can effect not just the future, but the future can effect the present and the past, as time is a continuum. Time is entangled. If considered as a unity with no separations in time and space except at the moment of conscious observation, then to effect one point in time-space is to effect all points which are entangled in spacetime. Time and events occurring in time, through entanglement, and as a manifestation of the quantum continuum, can therefore change the future and the past and events occurring in time simultaneously. The present and the future may change the past as all are interconnected, thereby giving rise to paradoxes where the past may be changed such that it becomes a different past. This paradox, however, can be resolved through Everett's conception of Many Worlds. The past which is changed, is just one past among many. Hence, in terms of the "grandfather" paradox, for example, one may travel back in time but the "grandfather" they kill would not be their "grandfather," but the "grandfather" of their doppelganger who exists in an alternate world as there are innumerable worlds each with their own probable existence and space-time.
!
400!
Cosmology, 2014, Vol. 18. 283-302. Reprinted from: The Time Machine of Consciousness
Paradoxes of Time Travel:
The Uncertainty Principle, Wave Function,
Probability, Entanglement, Quantum
Physics, Multiple Worlds
Rhawn Gabriel Joseph
BrainMind.com / Cosmology.com
Abstract:
In quantum mechanics the cosmos as a whole can be likened to a quantum continuum
which is continually in flux and is thus indeterminate except at the moment of
perception and registration by an observing consciousness or measuring apparatus.
Because of this continual fluctuation and the limitations of conscious perceptual
capacities and through a phenomenon known as "entanglement," it is only possible to
make predictions about what may be observed; and these predictions can only be based
on probabilities and a probability distribution. When quantum mechanics are applied to
the concept of "time" then what is conceptualized as "past" "present" and "future" is
also best described in terms of probabilities. Time is uncertain and not deterministic.
Causes may occur simultaneously with or even after effects become effects, as
demonstrated by entanglement. The experience of time or the existence of an object in
space, are also manifestations of the wave function. As the wave propagates through
space it effects the continuum both locally and at a distance simultaneously as
demonstrated by entanglement, where even choices made in the future can effect the
present. If time has a wave function, then the present can effect not just the future, but
the future can effect the present and the past, as time is a continuum. Time is entangled.
If considered as a unity with no separations in time and space except at the moment of
conscious observation, then to effect one point in time-space is to effect all points which
are entangled in spacetime. Time and events occurring in time, through entanglement,
and as a manifestation of the quantum continuum, can therefore change the future and
the past and events occurring in time simultaneously. The present and the future may
change the past as all are interconnected, thereby giving rise to paradoxes where the
past may be changed such that it becomes a different past. This paradox, however, can
be resolved through Everett's conception of Many Worlds. The past which is changed,
is just one past among many. Hence, in terms of the "grandfather" paradox, for example,
one may travel back in time but the "grandfather" they kill would not be their
"grandfather," but the "grandfather" of their doppelganger who exists in an alternate
world as there are innumerable worlds each with their own probable existence and
space-time.
!
401!
TimeSpace in Relativity
In 1904, Lorentz introduced a hypothesis that moving bodies contract in their direction
of motion by a factor depending on the velocity of the moving object. Time can
therefore also contract such that the future and the present come closer together. He
also argued that in different schemes of reference there are different apparent times
which differ from and replace “real time.” He also argued that the velocity of light was
the same in all systems of reference. In 1905 Albert Einstein seized on these ideas and
abolished what Lorentz called “real time” and instead embraced “apparent time.” In his
theories of special relativity, Einstein promoted the thesis that reality and its properties,
such as time and motion had no objective “true values” but were “relative to the
observer’s point of view (Einstein, 1905a,b,c). Einstein’s conceptions of reality and
time, therefore, differed significantly from that of Newton.
Time is relative to the observer (Einstein 1905a,b,c, 1906, 1961). Since there are
innumerable observers, there is no universal “past, present, future” which are infinite in
number and all of which are in motion. There is more than one “present” and this is
because time is not the same everywhere for everyone, and differs depending on gravity,
acceleration, frames of reference, relative to the observer (Einstein 1907, 1910, 1961).
Time is relative and there is no universal past. No universal future. And no universal
now. The “past” in another galaxy overlaps with the “present” on Earth. The “present”
in another galaxy will not be experienced on Earth until the future. There is no universal
now (Einstein 1955). Time is relative, and so too are the futures, presents, and pasts,
which overlap and exist simultaneously in different distant regions of space-time. Time
is relative, and the “present” for one observer, in one location, may be the past, or the
future, for a second observer on another planet.
Time has energy. As defined by Einstein’s (1905b) famous theorem E=mc2, and the law
of conservation of energy and mass, mass can become energy and energy can become
mass. Space-time is both energy and mass which is why it can be warped and will
contract in response to gravity and acceleration (Einstein, 1914, 1915a,b; Parker &
Toms 2009; Ohanian & Ruffini 2013). Time and space are linked, thereby forming a
fourth dimension, timespace. Time, and conceptions about the past, present of future
are therefore illusions, as there is no “future” or “past” but rather there are different
locations in space which relative to an observer appear far away or nearby. However,
when considered from the perspective of quantum mechanics, timespace is a
continuum, a unity, and time does not exist independent of this continuum, except as an
act of perceptual registration by consciousness or mechanical means.
Einstein’s theories did not replace Newtons. Instead Einstein came up with a new closed
system of definitions and axioms represented by mathematical symbols which were are
radically different from those of Newton’s mechanics. For example, space and time in
!
402!
Newtonian physics are independent, whereas in relativity they are combined and
connected by the Lorentz transformations. Moreover, although Newtonian mechanics
could be applied to events where velocities are small relative to the velocity of light,
Newtonian physics cannot be applied to events which take place near light speeds
whereas Einstein’s physics can.
By contrast, it is at light speed and beyond, and for objects and particles smaller than
atoms where Einstein’s theory breaks down and this was recognized in the early 1920s
(Born et al. 1925; Heisenberg 1925, 1927). The phenomenon of electricity,
electromagnetism and atomic science required a new physics and radically different
conceptions of cause, effect, and time.
The Uncertainty Principle: Cause, Effects, Time, and Probability
In 1925 a mathematical formalism called matrix mechanics posed a direct challenge to
Newton and Einstein and conceptions of reality (Born et al. 1925; Heisenberg 1925).
The equations of Newton were replaced by equations between matrices representing the
position and momentum of electrons which were found to be unpredictable. Broadly
considered, atoms consist of empty space at the center of which is a positively charged
nucleus and which is orbited by electrons. The positive charge of the atom’s nucleus
determines the number of surrounding electrons, making the atom electrically neutral.
However, it was determined that it was impossible to make precise predictions about
the position and momentum of electrons based on Newtonian or Einsteinian physics,
and this led to the Copenhagen interpretation (Heisenberg 1925, 1927) which Einstein
repeatedly attacked because of all the inherent paradoxes. Matrix mechanics is referred
to now as quantum mechanics whereas the “statistical matrix” is known as the
“probability function;” all of which are central to quantum theory.
As summed up by Heisenberg (1958) “the probability function represents our
deficiency of knowledge... it does not represent a course of events, but a tendency for
events to take a certain course or assume certain patters. The probability function also
requires that new measurements be made to determine the properties of a system, and
to calculate the probable result of the new measurement; i.e. a new probability
function.” Since time is also a property of a system, as events take place in time, then
time also, is subject to the probability function.
Quantum physics, as exemplified by the Copenhagen school (Bohr, 1934, 1958, 1963;
Heisenberg, 1925, 1927, 1930), like Einsteinian physics, makes assumptions about the
nature of reality as related to an observer, the “knower” who is conceptualized as a
singularity. As summed up by Heisenberg (1958), “the concepts of Newtonian or
Einsteinian physics can be used to describe events in nature.” However, because the
physical world is relative to being known by a “knower” (the observing consciousness),
!
403!
then the “knower” can influence the nature of the reality which is being observed
through the act of measurement and registration at a particular moment in time.
Moreover, what is observed or measured at one moment can never include all the
properties of the object under observation. In consequence, what is known vs what is
not known becomes relatively imprecise (Bohr, 1934, 1958, 1963; Heisenberg, 1925,
1927). Time, therefore, including what is conceptualized as the “now” also becomes
imprecise, as well as relative to an observer as predicted by special relativity.
As expressed by the Heisenberg uncertainty principle (Heisenberg, 1927), the more
precisely one physical property is known the more unknowable become other
properties. The more precisely one property is known, the less precisely the other can
be known and this is true at the molecular and atomic levels of reality. Therefore it is
impossible to precisely determine, simultaneously, for example, both the position and
velocity of an electron at any specific moment in time (Bohr, 1934, 1958, 1963).Time,
itself, becomes relativity imprecise even when measured by atomic clocks which slow
or speed up depending on gravity and velocity (Ashby 2003, Chou et al. 2010; Hafele
& Keating 1972a,b,)--exactly as predicted by Einstein and Lorenz.
Heisenberg’s principle of indeterminacy focuses on the relationship of the experimenter
to the objects of his scientific scrutiny, and the probability and potentiality, in quantum
mechanics, for something to be other than it is. Time, too, therefore, would have
potentiality, including what is believed to have occurred in the past (Joseph 2014).
Einstein objected to quantum mechanics and Heisenberg’s formulations of potentiality
and indeterminacy by proclaiming “god does not play dice.”
In Einstein’s and Newton’s physics, the state of any isolated mechanical system at a
given moment of time is given precisely. Numbers specifying the position and
momentum of each mass in the system are empirically determined at that moment of
time of the measurement. Probability never enters into the equation. Therefore, the
position and momentum of objects including subatomic particles are precisely located
in space and time as designated by a single pair of numbers, all of which can be
determined causally and deterministically. However, quantum physics proved that
Einstein and Newton’s formulation are not true at the atomic and subatomic level (Bohr,
1934, Born et al. 1925; Heisenberg 1925, 1927), whereas experiments with atomic
clocks proves that even “moments in time” can vary (Ashby 2003, Chou et al. 2010;
Hafele & Keating 1972a,b,).
According to Heisenberg (1925, 1927, 1930), chance and probability enters into the
state and the definition of a physical system because the very act of measurement can
effect the system. No system is truly in isolation. No system can be viewed from all
perspectives in totality simultaneously which would require a god’s eye view. Only if
the entire universe is included can one apply the qualifying condition of “an isolated
!
404!
system.” Simply including the observer, his eye, the measuring apparatus and the
object, are not enough to escape uncertainty. Results are always imprecise. Time itself,
is relatively imprecise depending on gravity, velocity and the observer’s frame of
reference.
As determined by Niels Bohr (1949), the properties of physical entities exist only as
complementary or conjugate pairs. A profound aspect of complementarity is that it not
only applies to measurability or knowability of some property of a physical entity, but
more importantly it applies to the limitations of that physical entity’s very manifestation
of the property in the physical world. Physical reality is defined by manifestations of
properties which are limited by the interactions and trade-offs between these
complementary pairs at specific moments in time when those moments are also
variable. For example, the accuracy in measuring the position of an electron at a specific
moment in time requires a complementary loss of accuracy in determining its
momentum; and momentum can contract time and the distance between the present and
the future. Precision in measuring one pair is complimented by a corresponding loss of
precision in measuring the other pair (Bohr, 1949, 1958, 1963); which in turn may be
related to variations and fluctuations in time. The ultimate limitations in precision of
property manifestations are quantified by Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle and matrix
mechanics. Complementarity and Uncertainty dictate that all properties and actions in
the physical world are therefore non-deterministic to some degree--and the same applies
to time and even what is considered cause and effect.
Bohr (1949) holds that objects governed by quantum mechanics, when measured, give
results that depend inherently upon the type of measuring device used, and must
necessarily be described in classical mechanical terms since the measuring devices
functions according to classical mechanics. The measuring device effects the outcome
and the interpretation of that outcome as does the observer using that device. “This
crucial point...implies the impossibility of any sharp separation between the behaviour
of atomic objects and the interaction with the measuring instruments which serve to
define the conditions under which the phenomena appear....” (Bohr 1949). Time,
however, is also determined by measuring devices, which may fluctuate depending on
gravity and velocity, including the velocity of the object being measured--exactly as
predicted by relativity.
Evidence obtained under a single or under different experimental conditions cannot be
reduced to a single picture, “but must be regarded as complementary in the sense that
only the totality of the phenomena exhausts the possible information about the objects.”
In consequence, the results must be viewed in terms of probabilities when applied to
the nature of the object under study and its current and future behaviors in time. Bohr
(1949) called this the principle of complementarity, a concept fundamental to quantum
mechanics and closely associated with the Uncertainty Principle. “The knowledge of
!
405!
the position of a particle is complementary to the knowledge of its velocity or
momentum.” If we know the one with high accuracy we cannot know the other with
high accuracy at the same time (Bohr, 1949, 1958, 1963; Heisenberg, 1927, 1955,
1958); and this is also because, there is no such thing as “the same time.”
Central to the Copenhagen principle is the wave function and the probability
distribution, i.e. the results of any experiment can only be stated in terms of the
probability that the momentum or position of the particles under observation may
assume certain values at a specific time. The probability distribution is a prediction for
what may occur in the future, that is, within a predicted range of probabilities. When
the experiments are performed many times, and although subsequent observations may
differ, they are expected to fall within the predicted probability distribution. This also
means that nothing is precisely determined at any particular moment in time (Bohr,
1949, 1963; Heisenberg, 1927, 1930, 1955).
Time and the measuring devices used to calculate time, are relative, and even moments
in time may be stretched or contracted relative to an observer’s frame of reference.
There is no universal now. Thus, even what is described as “now” or the future or the
past, must also be subject to a probability function. Time cannot be known precisely,
even when measured by atomic clocks (Ashby 2003, Chou et al. 2010; Hafele &
Keating 1972a,b,). Thus, even what is considered cause and effect” must be subject to
a probability function as the moments embracing the “cause” may overlap and occur
simultaneously with or even preceded the “effect” due to the stretching and contraction
of local time.
These are not just thought experiments. There is considerable evidence of what Einstein
(1955) referred to as “spooky action at a distance” and what is known in quantum
physics as “entanglement” (Plenio 2007; Juan et al. 2013; Francis 2012). It is well
established that causes and effects can occur simultaneously and ever faster than light
speed (Lee et al. 2011; Matson 2012; Olaf et al. 2003); a consequence of the
connectedness of all things in the quantum continuum.
For example, photons are easily manipulated and preserve their coherence for long
times and can be entangled by projection measurements (Kwiat et al. 1995; Weinfurter
1994). A pump photon, for example, can split light into two lower- energy photons
while preserving momentum and energy, and these photons remained maximally
entangled although separated spatially (Goebel et al 2008; Pan et al. 1998). However,
entanglement swapping protocols can entangle two remote photons without any
interaction between them and even with a significant time-like separation (Ma et al.,
2012; Megidish et al. 2013; Peres 2000). In one set of experiments entanglement was
demonstrated even following a delayed choice and even before there was a decision to
make a choice. Specifically, four photons were created and two were measured and
!
406!
which became entangled. However, if a choice was then made to measure the remaining
two photons, all four became entangled before it was decided to do a second
measurement (Ma et al., 2012; Peres 2000). Entanglement can occur independent of
and before the act of measurement. “The time at which quantum measurements are
taken and their order, has no effect on the outcome of a quantum mechanical
experiment” (Megidish et al. 2013).
Moreover, “two photons that exist at separate times can be entangled” (Megidish et al.
2013). As detailed by Megidish et al (2013): “In the scenario we present here,
measuring the last photon affects the physical description of the first photon in the past,
before it has even been measured. Thus, the ”spooky action” is steering the system’s
past. Another point of view...is that the measurement of the first photon is immediately
steering the future physical description of the last photon. In this case, the action is on
the future of a part of the system that has not yet been created.”
Hence, entanglement between photons has been demonstrated even before the second
photon even exists; “a manifestation of the non-locality of quantum mechanics not only
in space, but also in time” (Megidish et al 2013). In other words, a photon may become
entangled with another photon even before that photon is created, before it even exists.
Even after the first photon ceases to exist and before the second photon is created, both
become entangled even though there is no overlap in time. Photons that do not exist can
effect photons which do exist and photons which no longer exist and photons which
will exist (Megidish et al. 2013); and presumably the same applies to all particles,
atoms, molecules (Wiegner, et al 2011).
As demonstrated in quantum physics, the act of observation, measurement, and
registration of an event, can effect that event, causing a collapse of a the wave function
(Dirac 1966a,b; Heisenberg 1955), thereby registering form, length, shape which
emerges like a blemish on the face of the quantum continuum. Likewise, a Time
Traveler or particle/object speeding toward and then faster than light and from the future
into the past will affect the quantum continuum. By traveling into the future or the past,
the Time Traveler will interact with and alter every local moment within the quantum
continuum and thus the future or the past.
Entanglement proves that effects may precede causes, and causes and effects may also
take place simultaneously. In the quantum continuum, determinism and causes and
effects do not always exist and this is because, as Einstein proclaimed: “The distinction
between past, present and future is only an illusion.
In quantum mechanisms, although every deterministic system is a causal system, not
every causal system is deterministic (Heisenberg (1925, 1927; 1958). Rather, causality
is the relationship between different states of the same object at different times whereas
!
407!
what is “deterministic” relates to what may occur, and is better described in terms of
probabilities.
According to the Copenhagen interpretation (Bohr, 1949, 1963; Heisenberg, 1958), it
is the act of measurement which collapses the wave function. It is also the measurement
and observation of one event which triggers the instantaneous alteration in behavior of
another event or object at faster than light speeds; i.e. entanglement (Plenio 2007; Juan
et al. 2013; Francis 2012). For example, two particles which are far apart have “spin”
and they may spin up or down. However, although they are far apart, an observer who
measures and verifies the spin of particle A will at the same time effect the spin of
particle B, as verified by a second observer. Measuring particle A, effects particle B
and changes its spin. Likewise observing the spin of B determines the spin of A. There
is no temporal order as the spin of one effects the spin of the other simultaneously, faster
than the speed of light. Even distant objects are entangled and have a symmetrical
relationship and a constant conjunction (Bokulich & Jaeger, 2010; Plenio 2007; Sonner
2013).
Because the future can effect the past or present, the relationship of cause and effect
and energy or mass over time is uncertain and can be described only by probabilities
(Born et al 1925, Heisenberg 1925, 1927). Time is uncertain. Temporal succession may
have no probable connection with what precedes or follows (Heisenberg 1958). In
quantum mechanics, one can know the connection between two events only by knowing
the future state--thus one must wait for the future to arrive, or look back upon the future
state of similar systems in the past. If one knows the properties of an acorn at an earlier
time t1 one still cannot deduce the properties of the oak tree at time t2. This may be
possible only in isolated systems (Bohr, 1949; Heisenberg 1958). Thus time must also
be isolated. However, unless the entire universe is included in the measurement, then
the system, which includes time, is not truly isolated.
The Probability and Wave Function
Quantum mechanics is mechanical but not deterministic and causal relationships are
never teleological and not always deterministic. In quantum physics, nature and reality
are represented by the quantum state. The electromagnetic field of the quantum state is
the fundamental entity, the continuum that constitutes the basic oneness and unity of all
things. The physical nature of this state can be “known” by assigning it mathematical
properties and probabilities (Bohr, 1958, 1963; Heisenberg, 1927). Therefore,
abstractions, i.e., numbers and probabilities become representational of a hypothetical
physical state. Because these are abstractions, the physical state is also an abstraction
and does not possess the material consistency, continuity, and hard, tangible, physical
substance as is assumed by Classical (Newtonian) physics. Instead, reality, the physical
!
408!
world, is a process of observing, measuring, and knowing and is based on probabilities
and the wave function (Heisenberg, 1955).
Consider an elementary particle, once its positional value is assigned, knowledge of
momentum, trajectory, speed, and so on, is lost and becomes “uncertain.” The particle’s
momentum is left uncertain by an amount inversely proportional to the accuracy of the
position’s measurement which is determined by values assigned by measurement and
the observing consciousness at a specific moment in time relative to that observe and
the measuring device. Therefore, the nature of reality, and the uncertainty principle is
directly affected by the observer and the process of observing, measuring, and knowing,
all of which are variable thereby making the results probable but not completely certain
(Heisenberg, 1955, 1958):
“What one deduces from an observation is a probability function; which is a
mathematical expression that combines statements about possibilities or
tendencies with statements about our knowledge of facts....The probability
function obeys an equation of motion as the co-ordinates did in Newtonian
mechanics; its change in the course of time is completely determined by the
quantum mechanical equation but does not allow a description in both space and
time” (Heisenberg, 1958).
“The probability function does not describe a certain event but a whole ensemble
of possible events” whereas “the transition from the possible to the actual takes
place during the act of observation... and the interaction of the object with the
measuring device, and thereby with the rest of the world... The discontinuous
change in the probability function... takes place with the act of registration,
because it is the discontinuous change of our knowledge in the instant of
registration that changes the probability function.” ”Since through the
observation our knowledge of the system has changed discontinuously, its
mathematical representation has also undergone the discontinuous change and
we speak of a quantum jump” (Heisenberg, 1958).
Einstein ridiculed these ideas: “Do you really think the moon isn’t there if you aren’t
looking at it?”
Heisenberg (1958), cautioned, however, that the observer is not the creator of reality:
“Quantum theory does not introduce the mind of the physicist as part of the atomic
event. But it starts from the division of the world into the object and the rest of the
world. What we observe is not nature in itself but nature exposed to our method of
questioning.” Nevertheless, the act of knowing, of observing, or measuring, that is,
interacting with the environment in any way, creates an entangled state and a knot in
the quantum continuum described as a “collapse of the wave function;” a knot of energy
!
409!
that is a kind of blemish in the continuum of the quantum field. This quantum knot
bunches up at the point of observation, at the assigned value of measurement and can
be entangled.
The same principles would also apply to time, and to time travel. The act of moving
through time would effect time and all local and even more distant events. Traveling
through the past or the future would effect every moment of that future; however,
exactly what those changes may be, are indeterministic and can only be described by a
probability function.
In the Copenhagen model, objects are viewed as quantum mechanical systems which
are best described by the wave function and the probability function. “The reduction of
wave packets occurs when the transition is completed from the possible to the actual”
(Heisenberg, 1958).
The measuring apparatus and the observer also have a wave function and therefore
interact with what is being measured. The effect of this is obvious when its a macro-
structure measuring a micro-structure vs a macro-structure measuring a macro-
structure.
Moreover, according to the uncertainty principle, it is not possible to restrict any
analysis to position or moment without effecting the other, and this is because the very
act of eliminating uncertainty about position maximizes uncertainty about momentum
(Heisenberg 1927). Uncertainty implies entanglement. Likewise, eliminating
uncertainty about momentum maximizes uncertainty about position. Instead, one must
assign a probability distribution which assigns probabilities to all possible values of
position and momentum.
Therefore, no object, or particle, or quanta, or quantum, or moment in time, has its own
eigenstate (inherent characteristic). Although every object appears to have a definite
momentum, a definite position, and a definite time of occurrence, the object is in flux
and it can’t have a position and momentum at the same time as there is no such thing
as “the same time.” Time is also in flux. Therefore, when applied to time, then time,
including the future and the past, can only be defined by a probability function. This
means, the future and the past may change and that whatever is believed to have taken
place or which will take place is best described in terms of probabilities.
Time and Quantum Physics: The Future Can Lead to the Past
In contrast to Newton and Einstein, quantum mechanics concerns itself with the
dynamical change of state and its probability coupled with the Schrödinger (1926) time
equations which are both time dependent and time independent for particles and waves.
!
410!
The state-function specifies the state of any physical system as a specific time t. The
Schrödinger time equations relates states at a series time t1 to a later time t2. In quantum
mechanics, the Schrödinger (1926) equation is a partial differential equation that
describes how the quantum state of a physical system changes with time. Like Newton’s
second law (F = ma), the Schrödinger equation describes time in a way that is not
compatible with relativistic theories, but which supports quantum mechanics and which
can be easily mathematically transformed into Heisenberg’s (1925) matrix mechanics,
and Richard Feynman’s (2011) path integral formulation.
Therefore, time, in quantum physics, is not necessarily relative or even a temporal
sequence, and the same is true of future and past. As summed up by Heisenberg (1958),
“in classical theory we assume future and past are separated by an infinitely short time
interval which we may call the present moment. In the theory of relativity we have
learned that the future and past are separated by a finite time interval the length of which
depends on the distance from the observer...” and where the past always leads to the
future. However, “when quantum theory is combined with relativity, it predicts time
reversal;” i.e. the future can lead to the past.
Time Is Entangled
Time cannot be separate from the continuum except when perceived as such by an
observing consciousness or measuring device, thereby inducing a collapse of the wave
function of time; experienced as the present, past, or future.
Time, be it considered a dimension known as timespace, or as a perceived aspect of the
quantum contiuum, is also subject to entanglement, as all aspects of time are
interconnected and indistinguishable until perceived thereby inducing a collapse of the
wave function. “A” future can therefore effect “a” past and change it through
entanglement and by effecting the wave function.
Given faster than light entanglement, spooky action at a distance and the reality of the
wave function, then the laws of physics must allow for information and effects to be
conveyed faster than light speed and from the future to the past. If time is considered as
a gestalt and a continuum and not a series of fragments, then the future and past are
coextensive.
The quantum continuum is without dimensions and encompasses space and time in its
basic unity of oneness. Everything within the quantum continuum can be effected by
local effect and distant effects simultaneously at and beyond light speeds. Therefore,
the future, and the “present” being part of this continuum can effect the past by effecting
the wave function of the past, present, future, and thus, the space-time continuum, as
all are entangled.
!
411!
Light can travel to the future and from the past relative to the observer’s frame of
reference. However, light and time are not the same. The speed of light, and time, be it
past or future, are not synonymous, though both may be affected by gravity (Carroll
2004; Einstein 1961). Even the ticking of atomic clocks is effected by gravity as well
as velocity. Time is subject to change, including what is described as “now” as there is
no universal “now.” Moreover, just as light has a particle-wave duality and can
physically interact with various substances, time also can be perceived and therefore
must have a wave function if not a particle-wave duality. Time, be it “past” “present”
or “future” can be changed.
Time-space is interactional, and can contract to near nothingness and then continue to
contract in a negative direction such that the time traveler can journey into the past.
LORENZ LENGTH CONTRACTION
Time has energy. As defined by the law of conservation of energy and mass and
Einstein’s (1905b) theorem E=mc2, mass can become energy and energy can become
mass. Space-time is both energy and mass which is why it will contract in response to
gravity and acceleration (Einstein, 1914, 1915a,b; Parker & Toms 2009; Ohanian &
Ruffini 2013).
Time is perceived. Time is experienced. Time is “something,” it exists, and therefore it
must have energy and a wave function which is entangled with motion, velocity,
gravity, the observer, and the quantum continuum which encompasses space-time.
Time is associated with light (Einstein 1961). Light has a particle-wave duality and
travels at a maximum velocity of 186282 miles per second. However, time is not light,
and light is not time. Rather, light can carry images reflected by or emitted from
innumerable locations in space-time and can convey or transport information from these
locations which may be perceived by an observer and experienced as moments in time.
For much of modern human history time has been measured by celestial clocks such as
the phases of the moon, and the tilt and rotation of Earth and Earth’s orbit around the
sun which marks the four seasons and the 24 hour day (Joseph, 2011b). Time is a circle
and may be segmented into years, months, weeks, days, hours, minutes, seconds,
nanoseconds as measured by various clocks from sundials to atomic clocks. However,
time, even when measured by atomic clocks, can flow at different rates and speeds such
that the “future” and the “pastcan overlap and exist simultaneously with the same
moment in time, and this is because there is no universal now.
Atomic clocks tick off time as measured by the vibrations of light waves emitted by
atoms of the element cesium and with accuracies of billionths of a second (Essen &
Parry, 1955). However, these clocks are also effected by their surroundings and run
!
412!
slower under conditions of increased gravity or acceleration (Ashby 2003; Hafele &
Keating 1972a,b) In 1971 Joe Hafele and Richard Keating placed atomic clocks on
airplanes traveling in the same direction of Earth’s rotation thereby combining the
velocity of Earth with the velocity of the planes (Hafele & Keating 1972a,b). All clocks
slowed on average by 59 nanoseconds compared to atomic clocks on Earth. Time, like
the weather, is effected by local conditions. Under accelerated conditions and increased
gravity, time slows down; the same conditions which would enable a time traveler to
accelerate toward the future and from the future into the past.
It has been demonstrated that atomic clocks at differing altitudes will eventually show
different times; a function of gravitational effects on time. The lower the altitude the
slower the clock, whereas clocks speed up as altitude increases; albeit the differences
consisting of increases of a few nanoseconds (Chou et al. 2010; Hafele & Keating,
1972; Vessot et al. 1980). “For example, if two identical clocks are separated vertically
by 1 km above the surface of Earth, the higher clock gains the equivalent of 3 extra
seconds for each million years (Chou et al., 2010). The speeding up of atomic clocks at
increasingly higher altitudes has been attributed to a reduction in gravitational potential
which contributes to differential gravitational time dilation.
A predicted by Einstein, clocks run more slowly (time contraction) near massive objects
whereas time dilates and runs more quickly as gravity is reduced. Increases in altitude
and reductions in gravity speed up the clock, whereas decreases in altitude and increases
in gravity slow the clock down (Hafele & Keating, 1972; Vessot et al. 1980).
Time must have energy and energy can be converted into mass. Acceleration expands
mass (as energy is converted to mass) and increases gravity which contracts time and
mass. Increases in gravity can squeeze space-time into smaller spaces such that there is
more time in a smaller space. According to Einstein’s famous equation: E = mc², where
E is energy, m is mass and c is the speed of light, mass and energy are the same physical
entity and can be changed into each other (Einstein 1905a,b,c 1961). Because of this
equivalence, the energy an object acquires due to its motion will increase its mass. In
other words, the faster an object moves, the greater the amount of energy which
increases its mass, since energy can become mass. This increase in mass only becomes
noticeable when an object moves very rapidly. If it moves at 10% the speed of light, its
mass will only be 0.5 percent more than normal. But if it moves at 90% the speed of
light, its mass will double. And as mass increases it also shrinks and its gravity
increases. This is because increased mass increases gravity which then pulls on the mass
making it shrink toward the center of gravity, all of which contributes to the collapsing
and contraction of space time (Carroll 2004; Einstein 1913, 1914, 1915a,b).
A similar principle applies to time travel. By accelerating toward light speed, space-
time contracts (Lorentz 1982; Einstein 1961; Einstein et al. 1923), and the distance
!
413!
between the future and the present and distant locations in space time shrinks and are
closer together.
Speed, that is velocity, per se is not effected by time travel. Velocity does not contract
or dilate. Hence, since space-time contracts as one accelerates (and although time slows
down), and as velocity is not effected then one can traverse and journey across this
shrinking space more quickly, and cover the distance between the “now” and the
“future” more rapidly because they are closer together--and this would be possible only
if the “future” already exists, albeit in a different location in spacetime. Distant locations
in space-time are no longer so far apart; the result of increased speed and gravity.
The relationship between time dilation and the contraction of the length of space-time
can be determined by a formula devised by Hendrik Lorentz in 1895. As specified by
the Lorentz factor, γ (gamma) is given by the equation γ = , such that the dilation-
contraction effect increases exponentially as the time traveler’s velocity (v) approaches
the speed of light c. Therefore, for example, at 90% light speed 2.29 days on Earth
shrinks to just one day in the time machine and 7 days in the time machine at this speed,
would take the time traveler 16 days into the future. The distance between the present
and the future has contracted so that the future arrives in 7 days instead of 16.
Consider for example, 30 feet of space which contracts to 10 feet. Those inside the time
machine need only walk 10 feet whereas those outside the time machine must walk 30
feet. Likewise because the time traveler’s clock runs more slowly, and since more time
is contracted into a smaller space, it might take him 10 minutes to get 30 minutes into
the future. By contrast, it takes those outside the time machine longer to get to the future
because it is further away and as their clocks are running faster and it takes more time.
At 99.999999% the speed of light, almost two years pass for every day in the time
machine. At 99.99999999999999 % of c, for every day on board, nearly twenty
thousand years pass back on Earth. However, upon reaching light speed, time stops. It
is only upon accelerating beyond light speed, that time runs backwards and the
contraction of space-time continues in a negative direction. One must accelerate toward
the future to reach the past.
The shrinkage of space-time has given rise to the famous “twin paradox” (Langevin
1911; von Laue 1913). If one twin leaves Earth and accelerates toward light speed, that
twin will arrive in the future in less time than the twin left behind on Earth. Because it
took less time, the time traveling twin does not age as much whereas the twin left on
Earth ages at the normal rate. Because time-space has contracted, and since it takes less
time to get to distant locations which are now closer together, the time traveling twin
arrives in the future in less time than her twin on Earth. Hence, the time traveling twin
will be younger.
!
414!
Not just spacetime, but the mass of the object traveling toward light speed also
contracts. The amount of length contraction can be calculated and determined by the
Lorentz Transforms (Einstein 1961). For example, a 100 foot long time-space ship
traveling at 60% the speed of light would contract by 20% and would become 80 feet
in length. Presumably, its diameter would remain the same, though the likelihood is that
all surrounding space including the diameter of the time machine would contract. If the
time-space ship accelerates to 0.87 light speed, it will contract by 50%.
“Length contraction” can be expressed mathematically by the following formula: E =
mc²/(1-v²/c²), which is similar to the equation for time dilation (if one replaces the value
of v for 0). As the value of v (velocity) increases, so does an object’s mass which
requires more energy to continue at the same velocity or to accelerate. Since energy can
become mass, mass increases even as the object shrinks and contracts, thereby
increasing its gravity which exerts local effects on the curvature of space-time. Not just
the time machine, but space-time in front and surrounding the time machine also
contracts. Eventually, the time traveler may shrink to the less than the width of a hair--
at least from the perspective of outside observers. At near light speed, the time traveler’s
length would contract to the size of an atom. Once it shrinks in size smaller than a
Planck Length, it will have so much mass and energy that it can blow a hole in spacetime
and be propelled at superluminal speeds (Joseph 2014)--however once it exceeds light
speed, length contraction and the contraction of time continues in a negative direction.
Time reverses, and the direction of travel is into the past. One must accelerate to light
speed, which takes the time traveler far into the future, and then to superluminal speeds
to journey backwards in time, and this means the future leads to the past.
Although seemingly paradoxical, Einstein’s theories of relativity (despite his posting of
a cosmic speed limit) predicts that the only way to travel into the past is to exceed the
speed of light. Upon accelerating toward light speed, space-time contracts and the
space-time traveler is propelled into the future. However, it is only upon accelerating
into the future and then beyond light speed that the contraction of space-time continues
in a negative direction and time flows in reverse. It is only at superluminal speeds that
time reverses and one can voyage backward in time. Einstein’s general theory of
relativity predicts that the future leads to the past. Likewise, as shown by Gödel
1949a,b), Einstein’s field equations predict that time is a circle; and this violates the
laws of causality (Buser et al. 2013).
Because the present leads to the future which leads to the past, past, present and future
are linked in spacetime. The future can therefore effect the past and effects may take
place before the cause.
!
415!
Time, and time-space are embedded in the quantum continuum and can effect as well
as be effected by other particle-waves even at great distances; a concept referred to as
“entanglement.” Time and space-time are entangled.
Probabilities and The Wave Function of the Time Traveler
According to quantum mechanics the subatomic particles which make up reality, or the
quantum state, do not really exist, except as probabilities (Born et al. 1925; Dirac
1966a,b; Heisenberg 1925, 1927). These “subatomic” particles have probable
existences and display tendencies to assume certain patterns of activity that we perceive
as shape and form. Yet, they may also begin to display a different pattern of activity
such that being can become nonbeing and thus something else altogether.
The conception of a deterministic reality is rejected and subjugated to mathematical
probabilities and potentiality which is relative to the mind of a knower which registers
that reality as it unfolds, evolves, and is observed (Bohr 1958, 1963; Heisenberg 1927,
1958). That is, by measuring, observing, and the mental act of perceiving a non-
localized unit of structural information, injects that mental event into the quantum state
of the universe, causing “the collapse of the wave function” and creating a bunching
up, a tangle and discontinuous knot in the continuity of the quantum state.
Therefore, quantum mechanics, as devised by Niels Bohr, Werner Heisenberg, Dirac,
Born and others in the years 1924–1930, does not attempt to provide a description of
an overall, objective reality, but instead is concerned with quanta, probabilities and the
effects of an observer on what is being observed. The act of measurement causes what
is being measured to assume one for many possible values at specific moments of time,
and yields the probability of an object or particle to be moving at one speed or direction
or to be in one position or location, vs many others at a specific moment in time. Thus,
it could be said that the act of observation causes a wave function collapse, a
discontinuity in the continuum which is interpreted as reality and cause and effect.
However, time too, is subject to measurement and can therefor yield different values by
being measured. Observing and measuring time causes time to have certain values.
Central to quantum mechanics is the wave function (Bohr, 1963; Heisenberg, 1958).
All of existence has a wave function, including light and time. However, quantum
physics is also based on the fact that matter appears to be a duality, and can be both a
wave and a particle; that is, to have features of both, i.e. particle-like properties and
wave-like properties (Niel Bohr’s complementary principle). Therefore, every particle
has a wave function which describes it and which can be used to calculate the
probability that a particle will be in a certain location or in a specific state of motion,
but not both at certain moment of time. Again, however,time also has a wave function.
Every aspect of existence can be described as sharing particle-like properties and wave-
!
416!
like properties and this would necessarily have to include the experience of time. Time
can be perceived, therefore time must have energy, and energy has a particle wave
duality.
The wave function is the particle spread out over space and describes all the various
possible states of the particle. Likewise, the wave function would describe all the
various possible states of time, including past, present, and future. According to
quantum theory the probability of findings a particle in time or space is determined by
the probability wave which obeys the Schrodinger equation. Everything is reduced to
probabilities, including time. Moreover, these particle/waves and these probabilities are
entangled.
Reality and the experience of time, are manifestation of wave functions and alterations
in patterns of activity within the quantum continuum which are entangled and perceived
as discontinuous, and that includes the perception of past, present, future. The
perception of a structural unit of information is not just perceived, but is inserted into
the quantum state which causes the reduction of the wave-packet and the collapse of
the wave function. It is this collapse which describes shape, form, length, width, and
future and past events and locations within space-time (Bohr, 1963; Heisenberg, 1958).
In quantum physics, the wave function describes all possible states of the particle and
larger objects, including time, thereby giving rise to probabilities, and this leads to the
“Many Worlds” interpretation of quantum mechanics (Dewitt, 1971; Everett 1956,
1957). That is, since there are numerous if not infinite probable outcomes, each outcome
and probable outcome represents a different “world” with some worlds being more
probable than others and each of which may be characterized by their own unique
moments in time. “Many Worlds” must include “Many Times.”
For example, an electron may collide with and bounce to the left of a proton on one
trial, then to the right on the next, and then at a different angle on the third trial, and
another angle on the fourth and so on, even though conditions are identical with one
exception: they occur at different moments in time. This gives rise to the Uncertainty
Principle and this is why the rules of quantum mechanics are indeterministic and based
on probabilities. The state of a system one moment cannot determine what will happen
the next moment, because moments in time, and thus time itself has a wave function
and a probability function. The wave function describes all the various possible states
of the particle (Bohr, 1963; Heisenberg, 1958) and that includes the experience of time,
including the eternal now.
Wave Functions: The Past, Present and Future Exist Simultaneously
!
417!
Only when the object can be assigned a specific value as to location, or time, or moment,
does it have possess an eigenstate, i.e. an eigenstate for position, or an eigenstate for
momentum, or an eigenstate for time; each of which is a function of the “reduction of
the wave function;” also referred to as wave function collapse (Bohr, 1934, 1958, 1963;
Heisenberg, 1930, 1955, 1958). Wave function collapse, which is indeterministic and
non-local is a fundamental a priori principle of the Copenhagen school of quantum
physics and so to is the postulate that the observer and the observed, and the past,
present, and future, become entangled and effect one another.
Wave function collapse has also been described as “decoherence” which in turn leads
to the “many-worlds” interpretation and the thought experiment known as
“Schrödinger’s Cat’” i.e. is a cat in a sealed box dead or alive? According to the
Copenhagen interpretation, there is a 50% chance it will be dead and 50% chance it will
be alive when it is observed, but one cannot know if it dead or alive until observed
(measured). However, if there are two observers, one in the box with the cat the other
outside the box, then the observer in the box knows if the cat is dead or alive, whereas
the observer outside the box sees only a 50-50 probability (Heisenberg 1958).
The wave function describes all the various possible states of the particle. Rocks, trees,
cats, dogs, humans, planets, stars, galaxies, the universe, the cosmos, past, present,
future, as a collective, all have wave functions.
Waves can also be particles, thereby giving rise to a particle-wave duality and the the
Uncertainty Principle. Particle-waves interact with other particle-waves. The wave
function of a person sitting on their rocking chair would, within the immediate vicinity
of the person and the chair, resemble a seething quantum cloud of frenzied quantum
activity in the general shape of the body and rocking chair. This quantum cloud of
activity gives shape and form to the man in his chair, and is part of the quantum
continuum, a blemish in the continuum which is still part of the continuum and interacts
with other knots of activity thus giving rise to cause and effect as well as violations of
causality: “spooky action at a distance.”
Since mass can become energy and energy mass, the “field” is therefore a physical
entity that contains energy and has momentum which can be transmitted across space.
Likewise, since time can be perceived it must have energy and energy mass as well as
momentum which can be transmitted across space. Therefore, “action at a distance”
may be both distant and local, a consequence of the interactions of these charges within
the force field they create in conjunction with the force field know as “time.”
Because time has a wave function which interacts with the continuum which includes
time, then effects can be simultaneous, even at great distances, and occur faster than the
speed of light (Plenio 2007; Juan et al. 2013; Francis 2012; Schrödinger & Dirac 1936),
!
418!
effecting electrons, photons, atoms, molecules and even diamonds (Lee et al. 2011;
Matson 2012; Olaf et al. 2003; Schrödinger & Born 1935). Since time has a wave
function and is entangled, then effects may precede the cause since time is a continuity,
and this explains why effects may take place faster than light.
If considered as a unity with no separations in time and space, then to effect one point
in time-space is to effect all points which are entangled; and those entangled
connections includes time and consciousness (Joseph 2010a). And this gives rise to the
uncertainty principle because all are interactional (Heisenberg, 1927) and there is no
universal “now.” Everything effects everything else and thus time in the “future” can
effect “time” in the “past” via the wave function which propagates instantaneously
throughout the continuum.
Likewise, the intrepid time traveler, journeying into the past, is also a wave function;
consisting of particles and waves which interact locally with other local waves and
creating additional blemishes in the quantum continuum. By traveling into the past or
the future, the time traveler would come into contact with and change and alter the wave
function of other blemishes in space-time. Hence, speeding into the past would
therefore change the past, or rather, local events in that past, even if the Time Traveler
sat still and did nothing at all except go with the flow. The wave function of the observer
effects the wave function of what is observed and the wave function of immediate
surroundings. The backward traveling time traveler effects each moment of “local”
space-time as she travels through it. The wave function of the time traveler moving
through time would spread out over space, becoming vanishingly small until
disappearing.
By traveling into the past, the time traveler changes the past locally and perhaps even
at a distance, depending on his actions. Likewise, since the future, present, and past are
entangled, events taking place in the future, can effect and alter the past, thereby
violating causality such that the past the time traveler visits may no longer be the past
he was familiar with.
The probability function and entanglement when applied to the space-time continuum
indicates that the, or rather “a” past may be continually changed and altered to varying
degrees. This may also explain why memories of the past do not always correspond
with the past record (Haber & Haber, 2000; Megreya & Burton 2008). Although blamed
on faulty memory, perhaps the past has been and is continually and subtly being altered
through entanglement.
As demonstrated in quantum physics, the act of observation, measurement, and
registration of an event, can effect that event, causing a collapse of a the wave function
(Dirac 1966a,b; Heisenberg 1955),. Likewise, a Time Traveler or particle/object
!
419!
speeding toward and then faster than light and from the future into the past will affect
the quantum continuum. By traveling into the future or the past, the Time Traveler will
interact with and alter every local moment within the quantum continuum and thus the
future or the past. However, the past which is changed, always existed, albeit, as a
probability; one past world among infinite worlds each with their own past, presents,
and futures.
Everett’s Many Worlds
Since the universe, as a collective, must also have a wave function, then this universal
wave function would describe all the possible states of the universe and thus all possible
universes, which means there must be multiple universes which exist simultaneously as
probabilities (Dewitt, 1971; Everett 1956, 1957). And the same would be true of time.
Why shouldn’t time have a wave function?
The wave function of time means there are infinite futures, presents, pasts, with some
more probable than others.
As theorized by Hugh Everett the universal wave function is “the fundamental entity,
obeying at all times a deterministic wave equation” (Everett 1956). Thus, the wave
function is real and is independent of observation or other mental postulates (Everett
1957), though it is still subject to quantum entanglement.
In Everett’s formulation, a measuring apparatus MA and an object system OS form a
composite system, each of which prior to measurement exists in well-defined (but time-
dependent) states. Measurement is regarded as causing MA and OS to interact. After
OS interacts with MA, it is no longer possible to describe either system as an
independent state. According to Everett (1956, 1957), the only meaningful descriptions
of each system are relative states: for example the relative state of OS given the state of
MA or the relative state of MA given the state of OS. As theorized by Hugh Everett
what the observer sees, and the state of the object, become correlated by the act of
measurement or observation; they are entangled.
However, Everett reasoned that since the wave function appears to have collapsed when
observed then there is no need to actually assume that it had collapsed. Wave function
collapse is, according to Everett, redundant. Thus there is no need to incorporate wave
function collapse in quantum mechanics and he removed it from his theory while
maintaining the wave function, which includes the probability wave.
According to Everett (1956) a “collapsed” object state and an associated observer who
has observed the same collapsed outcome have become correlated by the act of
measurement or observation; that is, what the observer perceives and the state of the
!
420!
object become entangled. The subsequent evolution of each pair of relative subject–
object states proceeds with complete indifference as to the presence or absence of the
other elements, as if wave function collapse has occurred. However, instead of a wave
function collapse, a choice is made among many possible choices, such that among all
possible probable outcomes, the outcome that occurs becomes reality.
Everett argued that the experimental apparatus should be treated quantum mechanically,
and coupled with the wave function and the probable nature of reality, this led to the
“many worlds” interpretation (Dewitt, 1971). What is being measured and the
measuring apparatus/observer are in two different states, i.e. different “worlds.” Thus,
when a measurement (observation) is made, the world branches out into a separate
world for each possible outcome according to their probabilities of occurring. All
probable outcomes exist regardless of how probable or improbable, and each outcome
represent a “world.” In each world, the measuring apparatus indicates which of the
outcomes occurred, which probable world becomes reality for that observer; and this
has the consequence that later observations are always consistent with the earlier
observations (Dewitt, 1971; Everett 1956, 1957).
Predictions, therefore, are based on calculations of the probability that the observer will
find themselves in one world or another. Once the observer enters the other world he is
not aware of the other worlds which exist in parallel. Moreover, if he changes worlds,
he will no longer be aware that the other world existed (Everett 1956, 1957): all
observations become consistent, and that includes even memory of the past which
existed in the other world.
The “many worlds” interpretation (as formulated by Bryce DeWitt and Hugh Everett),
rejects the collapse of the wave function and instead embraces a universal wave function
which represents an overall objective reality which consists of all possible futures and
histories all of which are real and which exist as alternate realities or in multiple
universes. What separates these many worlds is quantum decoherence and not a wave
form collapse. Reality, the future, and the past, are viewed as having multiple branches,
an infinite number of highways leading to infinite outcomes. Thus the world is both
deterministic and non-deterministic (as represented by chaos or random radioactive
decay) and there are innumerable futures and pasts.
As described by DeWitt and Graham (1973; Dewitt, 1971), “This reality, which is
described jointly by the dynamical variables and the state vector, is not the reality we
customarily think of, but is a reality composed of many worlds. By virtue of the
temporal development of the dynamical variables the state vector decomposes naturally
into orthogonal vectors, reflecting a continual splitting of the universe into a multitude
of mutually unobservable but equally real worlds, in each of which every good
!
421!
measurement has yielded a definite result and in most of which the familiar statistical
quantum laws hold.”
DeWitt’s many-worlds interpretation of Everett’s work, posits that there may be a split
in the combined observer–object system, the observation causing the splitting, and each
split corresponding to the different or multiple possible outcomes of an observation.
Each split is a separate branch or highway. A “world” refers to a single branch and
includes the complete measurement history of an observer regarding that single branch,
which is a world unto itself. However, every observation and interaction can cause a
splitting or branching such that the combined observer–object’s wave function changes
into two or more non-interacting branches which may split into many “worlds”
depending on which is more probable. The splitting of worlds can continue infinitely.
Since there are innumerable observation-like events which are constantly happening,
there are an enormous number of simultaneously existing states, or worlds, all of which
exist in parallel but which may become entangled; and this means, they can not be
independent of each other and are relative to each other. This notion is fundamental to
the concept of quantum computing.
Likewise, in Everett’s formulation, these branches are not completely separate but are
subject to quantum interference and entanglement such that they may merge instead of
splitting apart thereby creating one reality.
Changing the Past: Paradoxes and the Principle of Consistency
Entanglement and “spooky action at a distance” prove that effects can occur faster than
the speed of light (Lee et al. 2011; Matson 2012; Olaf et al. 2003), such that effects may
take place simultaneously with or before the cause, such that the effect causes itself and
may be responsible for the “cause;” a consequence of entanglement in the quantum
continuum Likewise, a Time Travel can also effect the present and change the future of
the past, or rather, “a” past or “a” future.
Since the time traveler and his time machine are comprised of energy and matter their
presence and movement through time-space will also warp and depress the geometry of
space-time thereby creating local and distant effects. Time travel would effect each
local moment of time-space leading from one moment and location in time (e.g. the
present) to another location, i.e. from the present to the future and from the future into
the past, and these effects can occur simultaneously and at superluminal speeds.
Many physical systems are very sensitive to small changes which can lead to major
change. Unless the past and the future are “hard wired” and already determined, then
the very act of voyaging to distant locations in time will alter every local moment of
!
422!
that time continuum. In terms of “Many Worlds” the time traveler is continually
creating or entering new worlds which exist in parallel. Each “world” becomes most
probable the moment he interacts with the quantum continuum, including simply by
passing through time.
As detailed by quantum mechanics (Dirac 1966a,b; Heisenberg, 1955), shape and form
appear as blemishes and bundles of energy in the quantum continuum, the underlying
quantum oneness of the cosmos, emerging out of the continuum but remaining part of
it. According to the Copenhagen interpretation (Bohr 1934, 1963; Heisenberg, 1930,
1955), all quanta are entangled and therefore any jostling of one quanta can create an
instantaneous ripple which can effect local as well as distant objects and events through
intersecting wave functions.
The space-time continuum is part of that basic oneness and is the sum of its parts
including what can and can’t be observed. And this includes distant locations in space-
time corresponding to all possible futures, presents, and pasts.
As pertaining to time travel, as the time traveler journeys through the quantum
continuum of space-time, he will jostle and affect all the particles (or waves) he contacts
as he passes through time, and these will effect particles and waves elsewhere in space-
time, thus altering the very fabric of every local and perhaps more distant moments of
space-time. In the “Many worlds” interpretation, the time traveler is not really changing
the future of the past but is instead engaging in actions which cause branching and
splitting, which leads him to a future and a past which exists in parallel with
innumerable other futures and pasts. He is not changing the past, but entering a different
past which always existed as a probability.
As predicted by the Many Worlds interpretation, if the Time Traveler did make a
significant impact in the past, then the alteration of the past would effect the entire
world-line of history related to that event, including the memories of everyone living
since that event and all those who retain any knowledge of that event; such that no one
would realize anything has changed.
Minds, consciousness, the brain, memory, are also part of the quantum continuum and
can be altered by changes in it (Joseph 2010a). The act of observation can change an
event and an event can alter the observing mind. If the past were changed, we would
not know it had changed because everything related to that event would have changed,
from the writing of books to documentary films about the event. The alteration of the
quantum continuum is not limited to just that event but can alter the entire continuum,
including the quantum composition of the brain and memories of everyone who has
lived since that event (Everett 1956, 1957).
!
423!
The Principle of Self-Consistency
Many theorists have argued that it is impossible to change the past. Igor Novikov and
Kip Thorne (Friedman et al. 1990) called this the “self-consistency conjecture” and “the
principle of self-consistency” and various paradoxes have since been proposed to
support this contention such as: “what if you killed your grandmother before she gave
birth to your mother? If you did, then you could not be born and could not go back in
time to kill your grandmother! Presumably these paradoxes are supposed to prove it is
impossible to travel back in time.
In some respects these “paradoxes” are the equivalent of asking: “What if you went into
the past and grew wings?” And the answer is: “You can’t.” The time traveler can not
go back in the past and grow wings, or an extra pair of hands, or develop super powers,
and so on. Nor could the time traveler kill anyone in the past who, according to the past
record, did not die on the date he was killed.
Just as in “real life” there are boundaries which prevent the average person from
engaging in or making world-altering decisions, these same limitations would apply in
the past. Therefore, according to the principle of self-consistency, it is impossible to
change the past, and if any changes were made, they may be “local” rather than global,
and thus completely non-significant and not the least memorable--just like daily life for
99.999999999% of the 7 billion souls who currently dwell on Earth and who live and
die and are quickly forgotten except by a few other insignificant souls who are also
quickly forgotten as if they never even exists. Any changes made in the past may be so
insignificant as to be meaningless.
Just as it is impossible to determine position and momentum of a particle, the past may
also be subject to imprecision such that by establishing certain facts, makes other facts
less certain The past may also be subject to the Uncertainty Principle, which may
explain why historians, eye-witnesses, and husbands and wives may not always agree
about what exactly happened in the past or just moments before.
The Principle of Self-Consistency, however, holds that the past is hard wired and cannot
be altered, and reverse causality is an impossibility (Friedman et al. 1990). By contrast,
reverse causality (also referred to as backward causation and retro-causation) is based
on the premise that an effect may occur before its cause, such that the future may effect
the present and the present may effect the past. A “cause” by definition must precede
the effect, otherwise the effect may negate the cause and the effect! For example, the if
a man went back in time and killed his grandfather he would negate his own existence
making it impossible to go back in time and kill his grandfather. On the other hand, if
he did kill his “grandfather” it might turn out that his paternal lineage leads elsewhere,
i.e. “grandmother” had an affair and another man fathered his own father. Thus killing
!
424!
his “grandfather” has no effect on his existence and does not interfere with his ability
to go back in time to kill his grandfather. In this instance, the effect does not nullify the
cause; which is in accordance with the principle of self-consistency. The past can’t be
altered and if it is, the result is not significant.
If the past is “fixed” and hard-wired and can’t be altered, then although the time traveler
may go back in time with the intention of killing his grandfather, or Hitler, or Lee
Harvey Oswald, the result would be that he would be unable to do so; his gun would
misfire, the bullet would miss, or he never got close enough to the intended victim to
do the deed. The past is hard wired and can’t be changed.
If the past can’t be altered, then this also implies that the future may also be fixed and
hard wired and is not subject to alteration. However, if the future is subject to change
(as demonstrated by classical physics and the laws of cause and effect), then the future
must exist in order to be altered; as predicted by quantum mechanics, entanglement,
and Einstein’s theories of relativity. If the future may be changed, then why not the
past? According to the “Many worlds” interpretation, the past is not changed, instead
one changes which past world becomes his reality.
The “Many Worlds” interpretation of quantum mechanics would allow one to kill their
mother or commit a murder which had not taken place, in this “world;” but in so doing
would be effecting the quantum continuum and contributing to the probability that an
alternate world would become the time traveler’s world once he commits these crimes.
Paradoxes and Many Worlds
Most time travel “paradoxes” are based on the premise that the time traveler some how
gains powers or the will to do things he would never do, or to accomplish what others
tried to do and failed. Even if the time traveler wanted to kill his mother before he was
born, or assassinate Hitler before he came to power, would he be able to do it? Would
he be able to get close enough to shove in that knife or fire that bullet? And if he did,
maybe the victims would live. Maybe the knife or the bullet would miss the necessary
organ. Maybe he would change his mind at the last moment. Maybe in the struggle
someone else would shoot the Time Traveler in the head and he would die instead.
Many people tried to kill Hitler and failed.
“Paradoxes” can be reduced to simple probabilities. What is the probability a time
traveler would want to go back in time and kill his mother? What is the probability he
would succeed? What is the probability others would intervene before he could do the
deed? What is the probability that he might be killed in the attempt? ... and so on.
And if he did kill his mother, it would not be “his” mother.
!
425!
An observer, object, particle, interacts with its environment, with the quantum
continuum, changing and altering it. As postulated by “Many Worlds” theory, there is
one ultimate reality, but many parallel realities and histories, like the branches of a tree,
a hallway with infinite doors, or infinite highways all of which lead out of the city. One
highway leads to a past where Hitler won the war. Another highway leads to a past
where the Kennedy brothers were never killed. Yet another takes the time traveler to a
world where he was never born.
According to quantum theory and the “many worlds” interpretation, a new highway, a
new door, a new branch of the tree appears every time a particle whizzes by or an
observer interacts with his environment, makes a decision, or records an observation.
Thus, the time traveler may go back in time and kill the mother who dwells in a parallel
world or universe, but he would be unable to kill his mother.
The “Many Worlds” Resolution of The Grandmother Paradox Time Traveler “A”
goes back into the past and kills his grandmother when she was still a little girl. An
observer, object, particle, interacts with its environment, with the quantum continuum,
changing and altering it. A time traveler going into the past would change every moment
leading to that past simply by traveling through it, so that the past and the grandmother
he encounters would be a different past and a different grandmother. As also predicted
by the “Many Worlds” interpretation of quantum physics, a time traveler can appear in
different parallel worlds. Therefore by killing this grandmother in this past time,
Traveler “A” would be preventing the birth of that woman’s time-traveling grandson
“B”, thereby preventing “B” from going into the past and killing the grandmother of
the Time Traveler “A.”
Multiple Paradoxes. Effects Negating Causes A very wealthy scientist invents a time
machine and travels 30 years back into the past to prevent the car accident which killed
his very beautiful wife. He arrives in the parking lot of the business where she works
and lets all the air out of her tires and disables the engine.
He visits the younger version of himself and gives him the blue print for building a time
machine, and a list of 100 stocks and when to buy and sell them. The Time Traveler
returns to the future.
When was the time machine invented?
His wife takes a cab to her Lover’s apartment and that night they drive to her home and
that of her husband (the younger version of the time traveler). The Lover discovers the
blue print for the time machine and the list of 100 stocks. The Lover and the wife sneak
into the bedroom where her husband (the younger version of the time traveler) is
napping and shove a knife through his heart.
!
426!
Who invented the time machine?
The “Lover” upon killing the younger version of the Time Traveler (with the help of
Time Traveler’s wife), suddenly finds himself alone with the body, still holding the
bloody knife in his hand. However, the Time Traveler’s wife (and the blue print for a
time machine and list of stocks) have disappeared. Upon his arrest he learns the Time
Traveler’s wife was killed hours before in a car accident.
Information Exists Before it is Discovered Two research scientists, both bitter rivals,
are competing to make a major scientific discovery. Scientist A, who is better funded,
makes the discovery first, publishes the results, receives world wide acclaim and
receives a Nobel Prize.
Scientist B loses all funding, does not get tenure, and is reduced to living in obscurity
and working in his basement lab, where, 20 years later, he invents a time machine.
Scientist B makes a copy of the article which won his rival, Scientist A, the Nobel Prize,
and goes back in time and gives it to the younger version of himself. To ensure that the
true inventor, Scientist A, does not get credit, the time traveler, Scientist B, kills
Scientist A.
The younger version of Scientist B publishes the discovery and receives all the credit
and the Nobel prize. When the time traveler, Scientist B returns to his own time he is
famous and has a Nobel prize on his shelf. When he looks at the scientific journal where
the original article appeared, he sees the same article but with himself listed as the
author. He no longer understands why he went back in time to kill his rival.
Who made the discovery?
Another scientist after laboring his entire life makes a major discovery which brings
him wealth and world wide acclaim. However, he is old and sick and unhealthy and is
unable to savor the honors, women, and riches which are now his for the asking but he
is too old to enjoy. So, he invents a time machine, takes a copy of his notebook
describing the discovery, goes back 50 years in time and gives it to his younger self,
and explains: “here are the answers you are searching for. You are going to be rich and
famous.”
So where did the discovery come from?
Science is replete with examples of scientists who independently make the same
discoveries although they were working independently of each other and often not
knowing of the other’s work (Merton, 1961; 1963; Hall, 1980). Examples include the
17th-century independent formulation of calculus by Isaac Newton, Gottfried Wilhelm
!
427!
Leibniz and others; the 18th-century discovery of oxygen by Carl Wilhelm Scheele,
Joseph Priestley, Antoine Lavoisier and others; In 1989, Thomas R. Cech and Sidney
Altman won the Nobel Prize in chemistry for their independent discovery of ribozymes;
In 1993, groups led by Donald S. Bethune at IBM and Sumio Iijima at NEC
independently discovered single-wall carbon nanotubes and methods to produce them
using transition-metal catalysts. And the list goes on.
What this could imply, if the past and future are a continuum, is that the discovery exists
before it is discovered, albeit in a distant location of space-time. Or, in terms of multiple
worlds theory, one branch leads to a world where the discovery is made by scientist A,
a different branch leads scientist B to the discovery. Yet another branch leads to a world
where the discovery is not made until 20 years into the future, whereas a different
branch leads to a world where it is discovered in just a few days.
Mozart heard his music in his head, already composed--and some have proposed there
is a cosmic consciousness which contains all information, and that one need only a brain
that can tap into this source to extract this information. If true, this may explain why
discoveries are made simultaneously or why Mozart heard his music “already
composed” in his head and then simply wrote it down.
Time Travel Through Many Worlds
As based on a Many Worlds interpretation of quantum physics, traveling backwards
into the past would itself be a quantum event causing branching. Therefore the timeline
accessed by the time traveller simply would be one timeline among many different
branching pasts. Hence, the time traveler from one world/universe may kill his
grandfather in another world/universe. Likewise, in the past of some worlds, Hitler won
the war, the Kennedy brothers were never killed, the dinosaurs did not become extinct,
mammals and humans never evolved, and so on. All quantum worlds, many worlds, all
exist as there is an infinity of possible universes and worlds, each of which differs in
some manner from the other, from the minute to the major.
However, by changing (or choosing) his past, the Time Traveler would not just be
making this past “World” more probable, but may cause all pasts to become unified.
That is, the other pasts disappear as they are subsumed by and merge to become this
one unified past.
Therefore, according to the Many Worlds interpretation, by changing the past, and by
creating a single unified past, then once the merging occurs, all “memories” of earlier
branching events will be lost. No one will ever remember that there was any other past
and no observer will even suspect that there are several branches of reality. As such,
the past (and the future) becomes deterministic and irreversible, and this effects the
!
428!
wave function of time, such that the past shapes the future, and conversely, the future
can shape the past.
Therefore, if a time traveler journeys to the past, his passage will either change the past
so that those in the future can only remember the past that has been altered since this
past is the past which leads up to them. Or, the past was never really altered and always
included the Time Traveler’s journey into the past. That is, this altered past has always
existed even before he journeyed to it and this is because he traveled to and arrived in
the past before he left. Thus everything he does, from the moment he left for the past,
has already happened. The past, like the future is irreversible and has been hardwired
into the fabric of space-time.
According to the Copenhagen model, one may predict probabilities for the occurrence
of various events which are taking place or which will take place. In the many-worlds
interpretation, all these events occur simultaneously. Therefore, the time traveler is not
changing the past, but choosing one past among many: “new worlds” which always
existed as probabilities.
REFERENCES
Bohr, N., (1913). “On the Constitution of Atoms and Molecules, Part I”. Philosophical
Magazine 26: 1–24.
Bohr, N., (1913). “On the Constitution of Atoms and Molecules, Part I”. Philosophical
Magazine 26: 1–24.
Bohr, N. (1934/1987), Atomic Theory and the Description of Nature, reprinted as The
Philosophical Writings of Niels Bohr, Vol. I, Woodbridge: Ox Bow Press.
Bohr. N. (1949). Discussions with Einstein on Epistemological Problems in Atomic
Physics”. In P. Schilpp. Albert Einstein: Philosopher-Scientist. Open Court.
Bohr, N. (1958/1987), Essays 1932-1957 on Atomic Physics and Human Knowledge,
reprinted as The Philosophical Writings of Niels Bohr, Vol. II, Woodbridge: Ox Bow
Press.
Bohr, N. (1963/1987), Essays 1958-1962 on Atomic Physics and Human Knowledge,
reprinted as The Philosophical Writings of Niels Bohr, Vol. III, Woodbridge: Ox Bow
Press.
Born, M. Heisenberg, W. & Jordan, P. (1925) Zur Quantenmechanik II, Zeitschrift für
Physik, 35, 557-615.
!
429!
DeWitt, B. S., (1971). The Many-Universes Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics, in
B. D.’Espagnat (ed.), Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, New York: Academic Press.
pp. 167–218.
DeWitt, B. S. and Graham, N., editors (1973). The Many-Worlds Interpretation of
Quantum Mechanics. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New-Jersey.
Dirac, P. (1966a) Lectures on Quantum Mechanics.
Dirac, P. (1966b). Lectures on Quantum Field Theory .
Einstein, A. (1905a). Does the Inertia of a Body Depend upon its Energy Content?
Annalen der Physik 18, 639-641.
Einstein, A. (1905b). Concerning an Heuristic Point of View Toward the Emission and
Transformation of Light. Annalen der Physik 17, 132-148.
Everett , H (1956), Theory of the Universal Wavefunction”,Thesis, Princeton
University.
Everett, H. (1957) Relative State Formulation of Quantum Mechanics, Reviews of
Modern Physics vol 29, 454–462.
Friedman, J. et al. (1990). Cauchy problem in spacetimes with closed timelike curves”.
Physical Review D 42 (6): 1915.
Haber, R. N., Haber, L. (2000). Experiencing, remembering and reporting events.
Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 6(4): 1057-1097.
Heisenberg, W. (1925) Über quantentheoretische Umdeutung kinematischer und
mechanischer Beziehungen, (“Quantum-Theoretical Re-interpretation of Kinematic
and Mechanical Relations”) Zeitschrift für Physik, 33, 879-893, 1925
Heisenberg, W. (1927), “Über den anschaulichen Inhalt der quantentheoretischen
Kinematik und Mechanik”, Zeitschrift für Physik 43 (3–4): 172–198,
Heisenberg. W. (1930), Physikalische Prinzipien der Quantentheorie (Leipzig: Hirzel).
English translation The Physical Principles of Quantum Theory, University of Chicago
Press.
Heisenberg, W. (1955). The Development of the Interpretation of the Quantum Theory,
in W. Pauli (ed), Niels Bohr and the Development of Physics, 35, London: Pergamon
pp. 12-29.
!
430!
Heisenberg, W. (1958), Physics and Philosophy: The Revolution in Modern Science,
London: Goerge Allen & Unwin.
Joseph, R. (2010) Quantum Physics and the Multiplicity of Mind: Split-Brains,
Fragmented Minds, Dissociation, Quantum Consciousness. “The Universe and
Consciousness”, Edited by Sir Roger Penrose, FRS, Ph.D., & Stuart Hameroff, Ph.D.
Science Publishers, Cambridge, MA.
Juan Y., et al. (2013). “Bounding the speed of `spooky action at a distance”. Phys. Rev.
Lett. 110, 260407.
Lee, K.C., et al. (2011).“Entangling macroscopic diamonds at room temperature”.
Science 334 (6060): 1253–1256. Matson, J. (2012) Quantum teleportation achieved
over record distances, Nature, 13 August.
Megidish, E., Halevy, T. Shacham, A., Dvir, T., Dovrat, L., Eisenberg, H. S. (2013)
Entanglement Swapping Between Photons that have Never Coexisted.
ArXiv.1209.4191v1, 19, Sep, 2012. Physical Review Letters, 110, 210403.
Megreya, A. M., & Burton, A. M. (2008). Matching faces to photographs: Poor
performance in eyewitness memory (without the memory). Journal of Experimental
Psychology: Applied, 14(4): 364–372.
Olaf, N.. et al. (2003) “Quantum interference experiments with large molecules”,
American Journal of Physics, 71 (April 2003) 319-325.
Plenio, V. (2007). “An introduction to entanglement measures”. Quant. Inf. Comp. 1:
1–51.
Schrödinger E; Born, M. (1935). “Discussion of probability relations between separated
systems”. Mathematical Proceedings of the Cambridge Philosophical Society 31 (4):
555–563.
Schrödinger E; Dirac, P. A. M. (1936). “Probability relations between separated
systems”. Mathematical Proceedings of the Cambridge Philosophical Society 32 (3):
446–452.
!
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any citations for this publication.
Chapter
Full-text available
Atomic Theory and the Description of Nature, or: Die Atomtheorie und die Prizipien der Naturbeschreibung is already under: Niels Bohr: die Atomtheorie und die Prinzipien der Naturbeschreibung (Atomtheorie und die Prinzipien der Naturbeschreibung) نیلس بور: نظریّۀ اتمی و اصول تشریح طبیع available. We pbublish now the English version to complete the whole all five articles according to the original papers.
Article
Full-text available
In the well-known EPR paper, Einstein et al. called the nonlocal correlation in quantum entanglement as `spooky action at a distance'. If the spooky action does exist, what is its speed? All previous experiments along this direction have locality loopholes and thus can be explained without having to invoke any `spooky action' at all. Here, we strictly closed the locality loopholes by observing a 12-hour continuous violation of Bell inequality and concluded that the lower bound speed of `spooky action' was four orders of magnitude of the speed of light if the Earth's speed in any inertial reference frame was less than 10^(-3) times of the speed of light.
Article
The laws of physics might permit the existence, in the real Universe, of closed timelike curves (CTC’s). Macroscopic CTC’s might be a semiclassical consequence of Planck-scale, quantum gravitational, Lorentzian foam, if such foam exists. If CTC’s are permitted, then the semiclassical laws of physics (the laws with gravity classical and other fields quantized or classical) should be augmented by a principle of self-consistency, which states that a local solution to the equations of physics can occur in the real Universe only if it can be extended to be part of a global solution, one which is well defined throughout the (nonsingular regions of) classical spacetime. The consequences of this principle are explored for the Cauchy problem of the evolution of a classical, massless scalar field Φ (satisfying □Φ=0) in several model spacetimes with CTC’s.
Article
Wave-particle duality is frequently the first topic students encounter in elementary quantum physics. Although this phenomenon has been demonstrated with photons, electrons, neutrons, and atoms, the dual quantum character of the famous double-slit experiment can be best explained with the largest and most classical objects, which are currently the fullerene molecules. The soccer-ball-shaped carbon cages C60 are large, massive, and appealing objects for which it is clear that they must behave like particles under ordinary circumstances. We present the results of a multislit diffraction experiment with such objects to demonstrate their wave nature. The experiment serves as the basis for a discussion of several quantum concepts such as coherence, randomness, complementarity, and wave-particle duality. In particular, the effect of longitudinal (spectral) coherence can be demonstrated by a direct comparison of interferograms obtained with a thermal beam and a velocity selected beam in close analogy to the usual two-slit experiments using light.
Article
DOI:https://doi.org/10.1103/RevModPhys.29.454