Author:
(1) Andrew Knight, J.D. (aknight@alum.mit.edu). Table of Links I. Introduction II. Pseudoscience III. Unidentified Assumption IV. False Assumption V. Objection VI. Conclusion and References III. UNIDENTIFIED ASSUMPTION In nearly every account of time travel in which some aspect of the past is changed, it is implicitly assumed that a corresponding or commensurate change would occur to the present. Certainly, chaotic amplification – i.e., the so-called “butterfly effect” – would likely yield larger and more unexpected changes to the present than we might hope.[3] Still, it is tempting to believe that changes to the present depend only on changes to the past, and the magnitude of changes to the present would be commensurate with the magnitude of changes to the past. For example, the so-called grandfather (aka matricide) paradox, in which a time traveler kills one of his ancestors, is widely regarded as a physical limitation to the possibility of time travel. Further, because of the sensitivity of nonlinear dynamics to the precision of initial conditions, it is often (though not always) recognized that even seemingly insignificant changes to the past could result in temporal paradoxes. Hawking [9], among others, asserted that such a paradox can be resolved, and the possibility of time travel into the past maintained, as long as “when you did go back [in time], you wouldn’t be able to change recorded history.” Indeed, if Eq. 1 is correct, then a hopeful time traveler might simply plan to travel back in time and make as few changes as possible – ideally zero changes – to prevent the possibility of changes to the present (including any accompanying time paradox). After all, even the tiniest measurable change to the past might chaotically amplify – a la the grandfather paradox – in a way that prevents the time traveler from choosing to time travel, or even from existing. In other words, if the hopeful time traveler could be certain to make exactly no changes to the past, then he would presumably be guaranteed no changes to the present. Is this notion tenable? No. First, being present in any form in the past requires making physical changes that would chaotically amplify over time. Even passive observation requires the absorption of photons by one’s retinas. It is hard to imagine how one might time travel into the past and perceive any aspect of that experience without interacting in some physical form with his surroundings, and these interactions would necessarily influence the future. Second, as I will argue below, Eq. 1 is false. This paper is available on arxiv under CC BY 4.0 Deed license. [3] Indeed, changing the initial conditions of three gargantuan black holes by an amount smaller than the Planck length would still, given enough time, render their evolutions entirely unpredictable [13]. Author: (1) Andrew Knight, J.D. (aknight@alum.mit.edu). Author: Author: (1) Andrew Knight, J.D. (aknight@alum.mit.edu). Table of Links I. Introduction I. Introduction II. Pseudoscience II. Pseudoscience III. Unidentified Assumption III. Unidentified Assumption IV. False Assumption IV. False Assumption V. Objection V. Objection VI. Conclusion and References VI. Conclusion and References III. UNIDENTIFIED ASSUMPTION In nearly every account of time travel in which some aspect of the past is changed, it is implicitly assumed that a corresponding or commensurate change would occur to the present. Certainly, chaotic amplification – i.e., the so-called “butterfly effect” – would likely yield larger and more unexpected changes to the present than we might hope.[3] Still, it is tempting to believe that changes to the present depend only on changes to the past, and the magnitude of changes to the present would be commensurate with the magnitude of changes to the past. For example, the so-called grandfather (aka matricide) paradox, in which a time traveler kills one of his ancestors, is widely regarded as a physical limitation to the possibility of time travel. Further, because of the sensitivity of nonlinear dynamics to the precision of initial conditions, it is often (though not always) recognized that even seemingly insignificant changes to the past could result in temporal paradoxes. Hawking [9], among others, asserted that such a paradox can be resolved, and the possibility of time travel into the past maintained, as long as “when you did go back [in time], you wouldn’t be able to change recorded history.” Indeed, if Eq. 1 is correct, then a hopeful time traveler might simply plan to travel back in time and make as few changes as possible – ideally zero changes – to prevent the possibility of changes to the present (including any accompanying time paradox). After all, even the tiniest measurable change to the past might chaotically amplify – a la the grandfather paradox – in a way that prevents the time traveler from choosing to time travel, or even from existing. In other words, if the hopeful time traveler could be certain to make exactly no changes to the past, then he would presumably be guaranteed no changes to the present. Is this notion tenable? No. First, being present in any form in the past requires making physical changes that would chaotically amplify over time. Even passive observation requires the absorption of photons by one’s retinas. It is hard to imagine how one might time travel into the past and perceive any aspect of that experience without interacting in some physical form with his surroundings, and these interactions would necessarily influence the future. Second, as I will argue below, Eq. 1 is false. This paper is available on arxiv under CC BY 4.0 Deed license. This paper is available on arxiv under CC BY 4.0 Deed license. available on arxiv [3] Indeed, changing the initial conditions of three gargantuan black holes by an amount smaller than the Planck length would still, given enough time, render their evolutions entirely unpredictable [13].

Part of HackerNoon's growing list of open-source research papers, promoting free access to academic material.

The Myth of Commensurate Change: Why Altering the Past Doesn’t Guarantee Controlled Outcomes

About Author

Comments

TOPICS

THIS ARTICLE WAS FEATURED IN

Related Stories

Objections to Time Travel Theories

The Pseudoscience of Time Travel

Pseudoscience vs. Science: The Role of Logical Consistency in Scientific Inquiry

Why Time Travel to the Past Is Impossible

Objections to Time Travel Theories

Time Travel Theories and the Fallacy of No Change to the Present

Objections to Time Travel Theories

The Pseudoscience of Time Travel

Pseudoscience vs. Science: The Role of Logical Consistency in Scientific Inquiry

Why Time Travel to the Past Is Impossible

Objections to Time Travel Theories

Time Travel Theories and the Fallacy of No Change to the Present

Light-Mode

Classic

Newspaper

Minty

Dark-Mode

Neon Noir

Minty

HN StartUps