15

I have always argued with my friends regarding Time Travel that it is impossible. My argument has been that it will destroy the theory that all the energy in the universe is constant since when one travels to a different time, the universe at that time requires extra energy for accommodating the extra person. Similarly the total energy of the universe of that person's current time will be lesser.

I would like to know whether I'm thinking correctly? Has anybody ever experimented or proved anything in similar veins?

Qmechanic
  • 201,751
John Paul
  • 159
  • Actually, you can travel in time, but only long enough to not be noticed. (uncertainty principle, similar to virtual particles "borrowing" energy from the vacuum) – Michael Dec 09 '14 at 14:51
  • In some theories, antimatter is just matter moving back in time. See Retrocausality and Feynman diagram on Wikipedia. –  Dec 09 '14 at 15:17
  • 2
    @Michael not sure I agree HUP implies unnoticeable time-travel is possible. I don't like the pedagogical explanation of "borrowing energy from the vacuum" either. – innisfree Dec 09 '14 at 18:27
  • 2
    The total energy of the universe is not conserved. Dark energy is the primary example of this as it has a constant energy density, which means, for an expanding universe, the total energy is constantly increasing. Globally, energy is not conserved and in cases of time travel, the structure of spacetime that would allow for that also would have energy not be conserved globally. Locally is another matter – Jim Dec 09 '14 at 19:05
  • You should probably specify that you are talking about time travel into the past. Time travel into the future is perfectly possible. We are traveling into the future right now, and astronauts and other moving people travel into the future faster. – Mark H Dec 17 '14 at 21:56

8 Answers8

20

It is true that general time-travelling violates conservation of energy. If you transport yourself into yesterday, you appear twice in the universe for that day, which means twice your rest energy, which is a lot of energy.

It may mean that time-travelling is inconsistent and therefore impossible. But not necessarily. In general relativity, it is very hard to formulate the law of energy conservation and it might even be violated. In fact, in physics, there is implication that says the following.

  • If laws of physics do not change with time, energy is conserved.
  • If laws of physics do not change by translation in space, momentum is conserved.
  • If laws of physics do not change with rotation of your system, angular momentum is conserved.

They part of the so-called Noether's theorem. They are valid locally (there is no particular place, where the energy conservation is violated, for example). This is because locally, space-time always has the aforementioned properties. It is still possible, that you can go around some topologically-special trajectory, the conservation of energy would be violated. Such trajectory might be the time machine, for example if it is some strange fold in spacetime like a wormhole.

This can be illustrated by an analogy. You may know the Möbius strip - a loop of paper that has only one surface. If you have arrow pointing up and you send it around the Möbius strip and still hold it pointing in the same direction, it returns pointing down, even if you didn't perform any rotation and there is no particular place, where it was rotated around. It might be the same with the conservation of energy and time machines - there is no particular place, where it is broken, but globally, it is.

In fact, if you can imagine 3D Möbius strip, it is be even more mind-blowing. If you have a screw and a nut that fit together and you send one of them around the strip, when it returns, they will not fit together anymore, because travelling around changes handedness. Topology of space can really do a lot of unexpected stuff and breaking conservation laws might easily be one of them.

Another possible answer to your question is, that the time machine pays the energy debt. Personally, this seems more likely to me and makes creation of such machine even more complicated.

Irigi
  • 444
  • From your answer, I can conclude that most probably, the Law of Conservation of Energy will be broken by time travel.. unless we built the machine itself such that it makes up for the extra energy. –  Dec 09 '14 at 11:56
  • 2
    I disagree: Energy cannot be created or destroyed, but it can be moved. It can't be moved in time simply because time travel is impossible, but it doesn't hold that the opposite (time travel is impossible because energy cannot be moved in time) is true. – Jon Story Dec 09 '14 at 13:43
  • @JonStory By sending object into past, where it still exist in its previous version(s) is increasing total energy of universe in that time. Before the time machine past gate and after the machine future gate, where the time traveller exist only in one version, there is less energy than in time between the past and future gates, where more versions of the time traveller exist. Where did that energy come from? – Irigi Dec 09 '14 at 15:20
  • For one thing, you're assuming that it didn't take any energy to travel in time? Perhaps the act of time travelling uses energy at the "past" end? But even if this isn't true, the point is that it's the same energy, merely in a different state - energy can be stored for thousands of years, there's no "physics" which prevents the same energy existing in the same timezone twice, if brought there from the future. Counter-intuitive, perhaps, but it's still the "same" energy, merely moved into the past. – Jon Story Dec 09 '14 at 15:40
  • @JohnPaul Really, he's saying that in general relativity there's not known to be any such thing as a completely general conservation of energy, anyway. Since general relativity is the most experimentally and observationally successful theory that modern physics has regarding gravity and spacetime, even if time travel does invalidate conservation of energy that doesn't make really imply that it's impossible. – josh314 Dec 09 '14 at 15:59
  • @JonStory: If the "same" energy is moved into past from future, then the future universe loses that amount of energy and the past gains the same amount.. So the universe in past time has EXTRA energy at that particular time and the universe in future time has LESS energy at its time.. For the total energy of the universe to be constant, an equal amount of energy should be deducted at the past time and added to the present time (like time traveling of that specific amount of energy from past to future)!! A possible solution would be some mechanism in the machine itself to do that.. – John Paul Dec 10 '14 at 09:41
  • I think you're confusing concepts here: "The amount of energy in the universe is constant" is the RESULT not the CAUSE of "Energy can't be created or destroyed (or moved in time, because time travel is impossible)". If we take it as a given that Time Travel is impossible, there is nothing to say that already-existing energy cannot be moved within a time stream: It is not being created nor destroyed, and there is nothing to say that the Universe has to continue having a fixed amount of energy: it just happens that it can't be created or destroyed and there's no known way to move it in time. – Jon Story Dec 10 '14 at 09:58
  • @josh314: Thanks for the simplification.. But if time travel invalidates the theory, then aren't we actually accepting a false fact?! But since we all know that, "general relativity is the most experimentally and observationally successful theory", I'm still thinking that time travel would be impossible.. – John Paul Dec 10 '14 at 10:03
  • @JonStory: From what you are saying, I can deduce that if time travel was possible, then the law "Energy can't be created nor destroyed" wouldn't hold true in the first place!!! – John Paul Dec 10 '14 at 11:07
  • You're still missing the point that if you move energy into the past, no energy is destroyed or created: you're just moving some energy. I'm not born again in the past, I do not grow agan - the mass which is part of my body already exists, it doesn't have to be "sucked" out of other energy in the past. The amount of energy in the universe is constant simply because there's nowhere for it to go: not because of any law of physics. – Jon Story Dec 10 '14 at 11:11
  • 1
    @JonStory In our universe, there is no global law of conservation of energy. Energy can be created and destroyed globally. It is created as space expands and new dark energy is made to keep its energy density constant. It is destroyed as space expands and redshifts radiation. There are other examples, you can be sure, but the point is that the total energy is nowhere near constant (there is a net amount created) – Jim Dec 10 '14 at 15:08
  • And I should add that nothing is "due" to a Law of physics. Laws are statements of observations. If energy is conserved, then saying it is conserved is a Law. Things are due to theories of physics, which explain and rationalize laws and observations – Jim Dec 10 '14 at 15:08
  • @JohnPaul The claim that I'm making is that time travel doesn't invalidate anything. It is not contradicted by general relativity (GR) as we understand it, and that GR is the best scientific theory we have to apply to it. The original question asked if violating the conservation of energy would make time travel impossible. It does not, since energy is not actually conserved, or even defined, according to our best theories. – josh314 Dec 10 '14 at 20:12
  • @Jim: If what you are telling Jon Story is correct, then dark energy will have to be created and destroyed every time someone travels in time.. – John Paul Dec 11 '14 at 04:33
  • @josh314: Reading all of your comments, I have come to the conclusion that the Laws of Physics as we know it will be tweaked or will not hold true if time travel becomes possible! In the same vein, we can't dismiss time travel since it breaks the conservation of energy law, instead time travel will break or tweak the law itself.. – John Paul Dec 11 '14 at 04:38
  • @JohnPaul If time travel is accomplished using a closed time-like curve or some other smooth transition mechanism, then there wouldn't really be a problem with that. So long as the energy-momentum tensor is conserved – Jim Dec 12 '14 at 14:31
11

No, conservation of energy is for the entire system. If you can travel from time A to time B then both time A and B are parts of the same system as far as conservation of energy is concerned. Even if you assumed that despite travel being possible the times were separated, time travel would simply require the transfer of equal energy from in the reverse direction or be unstable and require the return of the traveller.

Basically, if time travel is possible then different times are part of the same system and conservation of energy is conserved. Conversely, if they are not parts of the same system, time travel will be impossible. So I am not saying different times are part of the same system, merely that you can't deduce whether time travel is possible from conservation of energy, because both the way conservation of energy works and possibility of time travel depend on the exact same unknown variable.

  • How can Time A and Time B be part of the same system? I've taken into consideration the total constant energy of the universe for time A and the same energy for Time B.. If that value is a Constant (a fixed value always), then it should be the same for Time A and Time B which will be disrupted if a mass of some energy - the time traveller in our case, travels from A to B –  Dec 09 '14 at 12:00
  • @JohnPaul Good question, edited answer to explain. –  Dec 09 '14 at 12:15
10

Consider that most elevators have a counterweight to store energy. The counterweight isn't perfect, but it reduces the overall energy needed to move the carriage. As the elevator moves up, the counterweight moves equally down.

Likewise, a time machine would have to overcome the energy deficit/surplus caused when moving from one point to another, but it could even the exchange somewhat by moving energy in the reverse direction of travel. If you can move a person backwards, you can move energy forwards.

This may make such a time machine more complicated, but there's no reason to assume it's impossible because it has to perform an exchange rather than a simple transfer.

Adam Davis
  • 1,510
1

I won't answer on the energy part of the question, but here a few remarks which in my opinion are worth adding:

  • The laws of physics are not frozen, the evolve (more precisely, they get more and more accurate ; e.g. Newton, replaced with the general relativity, etc.). Maybe one day someone will come up with an even more general theory, a part of which is the general relativity, with some new assumptions.
  • Although the contribution of physics is strikingly impressive, nothing guarantees that it covers everything (e.g. why would cats be able to model nothing, and humans everything?)
  • Proving that something does not exist, or will never happen(*), might be impossible. You may be able to prove that in the paradigm of modern physics time-travelling is not possible, but it will not prove that time-travelling is, in general, impossible. For example how could you prove that I'm wrong if I stated that I can travel in the past, but that when I do so another parallel world is created, which has its own evolution (and slightly less energy than ours :D)? (some people think these kind of questions are not worth spending too much time, cf positivism).

(*) Would the great scientists of the XVth century have believed that we would be able to communicate, travel, etc. as we do today? Would humans a few thousand years ago have believed we would be able to date their bones? etc.

0

Hmmm, a very interesting question.

Your logic seems sound, but I'm not a physicist, so I can't really say.

What I can say as a non-physicist is that time flows in the direction of increasing entropy, so moving back in time would mean that the Universe should go back to a state of lesser entropy, which is supposed to be prohibited. Interestingly, this in itself does not preclude travelling to the future.

I would be very interested to hear what the real physicists on here think about all of this.

Stefan
  • 119
0

Here is how time travel is understood by today’s established science, namely general relativity. To simplify matters, I’ll only talk about single particles time travelling, not sentinent beings: this doesn’t mean there is any fundamental difference, but it makes the whole thing sound much more plausible.

Consider a simplistic model of time travel, described in chapter eight of Science of Discworld III by Terry Pratchett et al. if nowhere else. First, picture the history of an ordinary world on a sheet of paper, with (one dimension of) space running horizontally and time unfolding vertically, from bottom to top. Points of such a picture correspond to events happening in different places at different times. The life of a point particle is represented by a line. Energy conservation means that one can draw how energy flows on that picture, from one point now to another a second later, without any sources or sinks.

I will pause here to remark that this picture has no notion of the present turning into the future: the state of the world “now” is just the points on a correspoinding horizontal section of its history. If you can understand that your idea of a horizontal section can be different from that of someone moving relative to you, you understand the crucial point of special relativity. Basically, all that remains is to find out how exactly it is different.

All you need for time travel is to roll up your sheet of paper into a horizontal cylinder. If the top and the bottom of the original sheet match up, there is no discontinuity anywhere, and the result is as consistent with the laws of physics as the original was. In fact, locally everything looks exactly the same: you can’t tell if you are on a cylinder or on a plane by exploring a small region of spacetime. Globally, however, we see that time has become periodic1. The line representing the life of a particle will necessarily return to the same point again after making some number of turns. Move a horizontal section (a “now”) along the cylinder and you’ll see that the particle turns into a past instance of itself after you make several turns. (This is what’s less realistic for a complex system than for a single particle.) This is not Groundhog Day where everything stays the same except you: in a very real sense, the previous morning is the same thing as the next one, and you can’t help repeating yourself. There is much less hope in a real physical time loop than in a fictional one.

On a cylinder as on a circle, energy can flow without being created or destroyed. Energy conservation need not be violated. Moreover, energy always flows from the past to the future. It’s just that after flowing into the future for some amount of time, it finds itself back in the past, and so does everything else.

Feynman’s idea of antimatter as matter going back in time is an intuitive description of a completely unrelated and rather technical point in quantum field theory. Consider drawing a circle on a plane (not a cylinder) and moving a horizontal section from bottom to top to watch the story unfold. You’ll see two particles appear out of nowhere, move away from one another, then turn around, meet each other again and disappear. If you complain about energy conservation here, you’ll be right: in fact this process, called pair creation and annihilation, needs energy at the beginning and releases energy at the end—usually, but not necessarily, in the form of gamma radiation (a fancy word for really, really blue light).

In the periodic universe, everybody who lives long enough is a time traveller, and must relive the same thing time and time again (although they probably wouldn’t experience it that way2). However, if you let the shape of your sheet of paper become a bit more complex—a plane with a mug handle attached, for example,—you can imagine a line—a life–that goes around two times around the handle and then continues into the future. But whatever the universe, a time traveller can’t change the past, because time is just another direction on a sheet of paper! The only thing he can do is experience the same moment two times from different points in space.

Finally, just for fun, consider curling up not time but space—a vertical cylinder. Now if you go far enough to the left, you find yourself arriving from the right. The world is finite, but there are no boundaries anywhere. This is what people mean when they talk about a finite universe.

1 The cognoscenti should note that this periodic Minkowski time is not the same as periodic Euclidean time used to turn quantum mechanical evolution into partition functions of statistical mechanics.
2 I don’t think there can be a thermodynamic arrow of time in this world, so it wouldn’t bear any resemblance to the real one, but I’m not aware of any descriptions in the literature. Edits welcome.

0

I am not a physicist but all you experts seem to have not understood some basics. Your molecules are not unique - they have always existed as something else. When you go back in time your molecules are already existing as a tree or a bird or grass or Napoleon bleeding Bonaparte, etc. So if you appear in the past what are you made of? Every molecule in the universe has already been assigned in that time period therefore you must be made of brand new molecules that didnt exist before. It's like having a 100 piece set of lego: You can use the 100 pieces to make a motorbike or to make a rocket ship but if you send the rocket ship back in time to when the lego was a motorbike, all of a sudden you have 200 pieces of lego. Or am I missing something?

-2

Time travel is not impossible because of conservation of energy, time travel is not impossible at all. Entropy does not allow you to go backwards in time, but forwards does not present any problems.

  • 2
    Could you provide some physics to support your viewpoint? – BMS Dec 17 '14 at 21:15
  • Which bit confused you? The laws of thermodynamics prove that entropy must increase as time moves forward. As shown by Villie and others, travelling backwards through time might not breach energy conservation, but since you would be able to do something when you got there, you would have reduced the entropy there. Ergo, you can not travel backwards. Travelling forwards is a simple as waiting. Going faster helps too. – Paul Smith Dec 17 '14 at 22:12
  • I would have thought that going faster would slow down how "fast" you go forward in time? Also, the energy expended to receive an object from the future could increase the entropy of the universe by more than the received mass would decrease it. And that assumes that the law of entropy, which is a statistical law, is on the same level as, say, conservation of mementum. I don't think three is an equivalent of Noether's theorem to back up thermodynamic laws. – Richard Dec 18 '14 at 21:41
  • Now that is an interesting angle; Defining time travel as pulling something out of the future instead of pushing it into the past. – Paul Smith Dec 22 '14 at 11:09
  • @Richard, this is a physics site. Please update yourself on the second law of thermodynamics. – Paul Smith Dec 22 '14 at 11:25
  • @PaulSmith Any theoretical time-travel that I have heard of involves a time machine which uses huge amounts of energy to exist in the point you are travelling back to. Given the resulting problems with causality, I don't know if pulling or pushing would be the best description. – Richard Dec 22 '14 at 11:35
  • @PaulSmith I was specifically referring to the fact that the second law of thermodynamics is an empirical law of statistical physics that has not been tested in the presence of time travel. This is different from conservation of momentum and energy which follow directly from the spatial and temporal symmetries of all known fundamental physical laws in the universe. – Richard Dec 22 '14 at 11:46
  • @PaulSmith I did not downvote you, but I would encourage you to compare our respective reps on this site before lecturing me. – Richard Dec 22 '14 at 12:01
  • @Richard, Entropy has not been considered a 'statistical' law for over twenty years, and in any view of the Universe of Newtonian complexity or greater, thermodynamics trumps momentum by quite a margin. Hint, which one can explain the other? I don't doubt your reputation is well deserved, but the difference between hard science and religion has always been that in science it does not matter who says something, what they say is true if and only if, it can be shown to be true. – Paul Smith Dec 22 '14 at 14:49
  • @PaulSmith I was not referring to my rep regarding whether I was correct, but rather that the manner of argumentation you choose to engage in is not well received. For some reason you are not persuading people. I am aware of attempts to explain all phenomena in terms of entropy, however I have not seen evidence that entropy is universally accepted as foundational. You still haven't provided any evidence or detailed argument in support of your position. As you say, this is science not religion. I appear to be the only person on this site interested in your position, so try to educate me. – Richard Dec 22 '14 at 15:14
  • @Richard, you accept that travel forward in time presents no particular difficulty.You also know that greater velocities reduce the rate at which time passes for you, which (relatively) increases how fast it passes for others, so to time travel a given distance into the future, the faster you are going, the less time it will take you to get there. You will note that the question of conservation of energy does not even arise and as this form of conservation does not have a time component, then there is no reason to think that it would be a factor in travelling backwards. – Paul Smith Dec 23 '14 at 18:38
  • This format does not allow for a detailed explanation of entropy, but entropy does have a time component and is therefore relevant to this question. Briefly, moving someone or something back in time that is capable of doing work violates the rules of entropy and so is forbidden. – Paul Smith Dec 23 '14 at 18:39
  • @PaulSmith Relativity: to you (the relevant frame) it will appear as if time in other frames is moving more slowly. To make another frame relevant there needs to be acceleration, not just high velocity, the basis of twins paradox. I understand that it is all matter of perspective :-) – Richard Dec 23 '14 at 20:45
  • @PaulSmith Conservation of Energy IS all about time according to Noether's Theorem. But if time invariance is somehow not preserved, negating conservation of Energy, then we can conclude that either in this case Energy is not conserved or that it is impossible because time invariance must always be preserved. I have seen people that know much more about Physics than me choose the former, but why is beyond my Physics, so I can't really judge how good an argument it is in this case. It may also be that the receiving time machine uses $mc^2$ of Energy to allow $m$ mass to travel, so no issue. – Richard Dec 23 '14 at 20:56
  • @PaulSmith this would be useful if you could add references and more details in your original answer. 1.Demonstrate that thermodynamics laws are accepted as fundamental, on the same level (or more fundamental) as the symmetries that create Energy and Momentum. 2. Suggest why it must hold in this novel case. 3. Demonstrate that no other mechanism would necessarily balance the entropy decrease ie. receiving time machine must do more work than it can receive, or the future could be seen as a contributing system, and overall entropy in the future must be increased by a balancing amount? – Richard Dec 23 '14 at 21:15
  • @Richard, a) If you accept that travel forward in time causes no conservation issues and you accept that conservation contains no time direction components, you must accept conservation does not apply to travel backwards in time. – Paul Smith Dec 27 '14 at 13:21
  • b) Noether's theorem applies to symmetrical systems. Inserting matter from another time renders any system asymmetrical, hence Noether no longer applies. c) Conservation is NOT all about time, it is about change over time. The direction of change is immaterial. – Paul Smith Dec 27 '14 at 13:24
  • And finally, d) getting mc2 out of e implies a perfect conversion, with no waste and no change of entropy. In other words, a perpetual motion machine. So even though energy is conserved, entropy is violated, rendering it impossible. – Paul Smith Dec 27 '14 at 13:32