DOCTOR WHO AND TIME TRAVEL
Posted by anthonynorth on July 3, 2007
Now that the latest series of Doctor Who has finished it is maybe time to discuss the central theme of the series – time travel. Does science show any indication that it may be possible?
Theories do exist – and significantly more advanced than the Doctor’s understanding of ‘Timey Whimey.’ But what is time? The physicist, Wheeler, put it well when he said: ‘… time is what keeps everything from happening at once.’
WHAT IS TIME?
Time, though, is hard to grasp. For instance, we can identify periods of time in the revolution of the Earth (a day), or the time it takes the Earth to orbit the Sun (a year). But other than this, time is without known units.
The units we know of – seconds, minutes, hours, etc – are a product of mathematics, slicing the known, astronomical time periods into bits so we can manage our lives. In this sense, time is something we impose on ourselves.
A more grounded explanation of time is to say it is a process we must experience because things happen in time – in particular, a process that reduces things to chaos – from order to disorder. This is decay, erosion – basically, entropy.
ARE WE STUCK IN TIME?
Time seems to have a fundamental effect upon us. Indeed, we live our own ‘time-line’, which merges with other’s to produce the onward progression of ‘us’ IN time. It has to be like this or our experiences would be nonsensical.
This is due to the Law of Causality. Basically, this says that a cause must come before an effect. For instance, a bullet must be fired (a cause) before it can hit someone (an effect). To be any different would be ridiculous.
This is reflected in the Newtonian view of space and time as mechanistic, unchanging, absolute. Here, time is the inevitability of an easily understood ‘machine-like’ universe. Unfortunately, though, the universe isn’t like that.
RELATIVELY SPEAKING
Einstein destroyed the simplicity of the Newtonian universe with relativity theory. Time was combined with the three known physical dimensions to become a concept known as ‘spacetime’. Things happen physically, AND in time.
Matter and energy can stretch and distort the physical dimensions, so can also have an effect on time. Indeed, time can slow down dependent upon the speed of the observer. This takes away a direct point of reference for a definite time.
In a relativistic universe, time can be different to the situations of different observers. But sadly, one thing remains constant. There is still an arrow of time that points forwards. It never seems to point backwards – in the universe, at least.
WHAT IS NOW?
We think of time in terms of a past, present and future. The past has happened, the present is ‘now’, and the future is yet to happen. Yet whilst it is true to say the future hasn’t happened, the term ‘now’ is far more complicated.
We sense things because forces bombard our sensory receptors. For instance, we ‘see’ because light bounces off objects and thus hits our eyes. But forces take ‘time’ to cross from one place to another.
Due to this, our understanding of a sensory ‘now’ is really a myriad of impressions from different points in the past. Think of a thunderstorm where we see the flash before we hear the bang. This is because light travels faster than sound.
POSSIBILITIES OF TIME TRAVEL
In this sense, our ‘now’ can be a form of time machine. For instance, when we look into space we see the distant past. When we are told we are looking at an object 50 light years away, it is also how it was 50 light years in the past, for it takes 50 light years for the rebounded light to reach us.
The universe holds possibilities of time travel in other ways. For instance, as matter enters a Black Hole, space is said to collapse. As time is as one with space, then theoretically so could time. Hence, if we could access a Black Hole and come out the other end, time travel could have been achieved.
Theoretical particles known as ‘tachyons’ have also been envisaged. Relativity theory says we cannot go faster than light as we would escape the confines of the universe – possibly even go back in time. Tachyons are ‘faster than light’ particles, so, if they exist, they could hold the key to time travel.
SUBATOMIC TIME
Whilst the universe we experience requires an arrow of time, the subatomic world has been observed to be different. There appears to be no observable sense of time in their interaction. So if they are ‘timeless’, could the key lie here?
To many physicists, ‘particles’ are old hat, replaced by a concept known as ‘string theory.’ Here, what we think of as particles are just the ‘ends’ of far more complicated structures.
If ‘strings’ exist as the fabric of the universe, further dimensions are required to make the math fit. The beauty of this is that it holds the possibility of other dimensions of time. So maybe we experience the arrow of time in our known dimension of time alone. Accessing other time dimensions could be the key to time travel.
FUTURE TRAVEL
Most of the theories so far hold a limitation. They deal with time travel in terms of going back in time. Going forward in time is a different proposition – especially if it hasn’t happened.
If, somewhere, it has happened then we face the problem of ‘free will’. If a future is mapped out, how can we have choice to do as we want? Surely a future implies that the decision is already made?
We can counter this problem by viewing the subatomic world – or other dimensions of time – as an eternal now. In such a concept, our choices will continually re-write the script of the future. Perhaps this is what a ‘time line’ really implies. It would provide a future based on our choices at the point when time travel began.
INFORMATION UNIVERSE
The problem with all this is, of course, we are too large to ‘travel’ in a subatomic world. However, there is an argument that the subatomic is, infact, a part of an information universe. We are information within it, so if we could be reduced to information, and reconstructed in the future, we can do it.
Another argument holds that, at an information level, the particle and the universe are one and the same. The particle accesses all the information of the whole. Hence, simply connecting with such a world would display all time before us.
Alternatively, perhaps a future time machine would simply access the timeless information of the universe and portray it in virtual reality. In this concept, we don’t travel in time. Time comes to us.
IN CONCLUSION
At this point in time, time travel appears impossible. But this is maybe a problem of technology alone. Ideas exist that could allow time travel to become a reality. So maybe we will one day become Time Lords with our own TARDIS with which to explore.
For now, it is merely theory. But hopefully, this post will have made you think – if, of course, you have the time.
© Anthony North, July 2007
Click Tony On, on Blogroll, for my current affairs blog.
While you’re here, why not have a look around? Check out the pages – you’ll also find sub-domains on the Blogroll. Beyond the Blog is the site that has everything.
Terry said
We travel into the future continuously.
We just don’t notice it as time travel because everyone is moving the same speed and we just choose to call it the present.
In order to travel into the future, we just need to travel through space really fast. Once we have done that, our perceived passage of time will have been shorter than everyone elses and we would have literally traveled forward in time.
Travel to the past could never happen (IMHO). The past, as a place, does not “exist”.
How to get your food spit in said
Dr. Who rules.
Einstein Junior said
You made one major mistake in your logic and reasoning about time travel and relativity….
Einstein said (and it has been proven) that no matter could accelerate to the speed of light. However, there is nothing in our current understanding that says that matter can’t travel faster than the speed of light. It would just require an instantaneous jump in velocity from 0 to greater than c. Possibly through the use of Tachyons, dark matter, etc.
anthonynorth said
Hi Young Einstein,
If I remember correctly, to reach the speed of light, matter would require infinite mass, thus making it impossible to reach the speed of light.
The instantaneous jump in velocity to greater than c is quite correct, but to place all the points in a post would require a massive increase in words. Hence, I just say:
‘Tachyons are ‘faster than light’ particles, so, if they exist, they could hold the key to time travel.’
We mustn’t confuse simplicity in explanation for a ‘major mistake.’
I haven’t mentioned the posibilities of ‘dark matter’ as I don’t want to get too involved in fictional concepts, if you’ll excuse the pun.
steven jones said
to change in to dim,2 time travel
can be done.
Roger Cathey said
If I recall correctly, every ether theorists’ findings were appropriated by ‘relativists’ and so
a ’stand-off’ resulted in terms of language or interpretation.
When Michelson did experiments at the Ryerson lab, with a vertical component to the interfermoter,
which was very large in comparison to the earlier version, the results seemed to suggest that an
‘ether’ must extend for thousands of miles into space.
Evidently this wasn’t acceptible to Michelson and this result is conveniently ignored by the
modern-day relativists, even though at that time, they claimed it ‘jibed’ with their own
predictions.
Again, if I recall correctly, the modern day delineations of the ’slip stream’ or fields around
the earth that are impinged-upon by the solar particles and fields, do in fact extend for not just
thousands of miles, but many thousands of miles away from the earth.
The field of magnetohydrodynamics suggests some lines for inquiry along these lines, as suggested
by Hilgenberg’s ether-vortex theorems.
In fact, there seems to be a great resurgence into ether-theorism to aid conceptualization of space
today despite so-called ‘proofs’ of the Einstein-Minkowski concepts of ‘bent space’ so to speak.
While the latter are highly abstract and beyond the kin of most of us, the former allow for a
potential to visualize and seems to comport rather more facilely to intuitive approaches to
things.
It might even be conceived that the Einsteinian approach is rather a method encoding and
making facts mysterious and ‘ultra-mundane’ akin to methods of a priestcraft, while the ether
theorism is more in favor of things any idiot can understand, and yet yields results that
can be quantified and reduced to measure. If the relativistic interpretation of results cannot
be distinguished from ether-theorism, doesn’t that indicate that the differences are merely
questions of public accession? Why make things more complicated than neccessary? Or inaccessible?
anthonynorth said
Hi Roger,
Many thanks for that input.
Jamie said
Without knowing the science involved, I’ve always felt that “time” was a great deal mushier than most people think. It can speed or slow dependent on the amount of attention you happen to be giving it at the moment and is probably attached to the fact that a body must live and die in a linear fashion while thought can leap all over the place seemingly in an instant if tales of “visits” by the dying or severely stressed have any validity at all.
anthonynorth said
Hi Jamie,
Fair point. As with so many scientific theories, I don’t really think any of them tell us about the universe, but about ourselves – our own particular spin on things at that moment.
Sweet Talking Guy.. said
Phew difficult to get my head round this right now, but isn’t sleeping a kind of time travel?
anthonynorth said
Hi Andy,
Interesting thought. I’ll have to think about that one as well.
Roger said
It probably isn’t that important to have a ‘complete’ theory about anything. It is enough to have
some repeatable experimental procedures PLUS one of many different patterns of IDEATION that might
aim at making sense of such.
Evolution of IDEATION requires that any ideation must survive this guantlet.
After all: we don’t want to end up with a lie. We want to end up with the closest thing to
the facts as possible.
It is no sin to propose imperfect models.
This is one of the most amazing things to me about the history of science.
When a physicist proposed that there might not be ‘parity’, he was highly embarrassed and
yet, that turned out to be closer to the later facts.
And then ‘facts’ turned yet again, and yet again.
Now, we have this issue about a ‘repulsive’ form of ‘gravity’.
The ‘politick’ of ‘natural science’ or ‘physics’ seems to deal not with
interests in facts or ‘pure’ observation, but avoidence (sp?) of ‘embarrassement’
in a community of stuck-up little pricks who are ever after one thing: money.
It’s funny. Really.
anthonynorth said
Hi Roger,
I tend to agree with that analysis.