short definition of time travel

Is Time Travel Possible?

We all travel in time! We travel one year in time between birthdays, for example. And we are all traveling in time at approximately the same speed: 1 second per second.

We typically experience time at one second per second. Credit: NASA/JPL-Caltech

NASA's space telescopes also give us a way to look back in time. Telescopes help us see stars and galaxies that are very far away . It takes a long time for the light from faraway galaxies to reach us. So, when we look into the sky with a telescope, we are seeing what those stars and galaxies looked like a very long time ago.

However, when we think of the phrase "time travel," we are usually thinking of traveling faster than 1 second per second. That kind of time travel sounds like something you'd only see in movies or science fiction books. Could it be real? Science says yes!

Image of galaxies, taken by the Hubble Space Telescope.

This image from the Hubble Space Telescope shows galaxies that are very far away as they existed a very long time ago. Credit: NASA, ESA and R. Thompson (Univ. Arizona)

How do we know that time travel is possible?

More than 100 years ago, a famous scientist named Albert Einstein came up with an idea about how time works. He called it relativity. This theory says that time and space are linked together. Einstein also said our universe has a speed limit: nothing can travel faster than the speed of light (186,000 miles per second).

Einstein's theory of relativity says that space and time are linked together. Credit: NASA/JPL-Caltech

What does this mean for time travel? Well, according to this theory, the faster you travel, the slower you experience time. Scientists have done some experiments to show that this is true.

For example, there was an experiment that used two clocks set to the exact same time. One clock stayed on Earth, while the other flew in an airplane (going in the same direction Earth rotates).

After the airplane flew around the world, scientists compared the two clocks. The clock on the fast-moving airplane was slightly behind the clock on the ground. So, the clock on the airplane was traveling slightly slower in time than 1 second per second.

Credit: NASA/JPL-Caltech

Can we use time travel in everyday life?

We can't use a time machine to travel hundreds of years into the past or future. That kind of time travel only happens in books and movies. But the math of time travel does affect the things we use every day.

For example, we use GPS satellites to help us figure out how to get to new places. (Check out our video about how GPS satellites work .) NASA scientists also use a high-accuracy version of GPS to keep track of where satellites are in space. But did you know that GPS relies on time-travel calculations to help you get around town?

GPS satellites orbit around Earth very quickly at about 8,700 miles (14,000 kilometers) per hour. This slows down GPS satellite clocks by a small fraction of a second (similar to the airplane example above).

Illustration of GPS satellites orbiting around Earth

GPS satellites orbit around Earth at about 8,700 miles (14,000 kilometers) per hour. Credit: GPS.gov

However, the satellites are also orbiting Earth about 12,550 miles (20,200 km) above the surface. This actually speeds up GPS satellite clocks by a slighter larger fraction of a second.

Here's how: Einstein's theory also says that gravity curves space and time, causing the passage of time to slow down. High up where the satellites orbit, Earth's gravity is much weaker. This causes the clocks on GPS satellites to run faster than clocks on the ground.

The combined result is that the clocks on GPS satellites experience time at a rate slightly faster than 1 second per second. Luckily, scientists can use math to correct these differences in time.

Illustration of a hand holding a phone with a maps application active.

If scientists didn't correct the GPS clocks, there would be big problems. GPS satellites wouldn't be able to correctly calculate their position or yours. The errors would add up to a few miles each day, which is a big deal. GPS maps might think your home is nowhere near where it actually is!

In Summary:

Yes, time travel is indeed a real thing. But it's not quite what you've probably seen in the movies. Under certain conditions, it is possible to experience time passing at a different rate than 1 second per second. And there are important reasons why we need to understand this real-world form of time travel.

If you liked this, you may like:

Time Travel

Arguably, we are always travelling though time, as we move from the past into the future. But time travel usually refers to the possibility of changing the rate at which we travel into the future, or completely reversing it so that we travel into the past. Although a plot device in fiction since the 19 th Century (see the section on Time in Literature ), time travel has never been practically demonstrated or verified, and may still be impossible.

Time travel is not possible in Newtonian absolute time (we move deterministically and linearly forward into the future). Neither is it possible according to special relativity (we are constrained by our light cones). But general relativity does raises the prospect (at least theoretically) of travel through time, i.e. the possibility of movement backwards and/or forwards in time, independently of the normal flow of time we observe on Earth, in much the same way as we can move between different points in space.

Time travel is usually taken to mean that a person’s mind and body remain unchanged, with their memories intact, while their location in time is changed. If the traveller’s body and mind reverted its condition at the destination time, then no time travel would be perceptible.

Time Travel Scenarios

Although, in the main, differing fundamentally from the H.G. Wells concept of a physical machine with levers and dials, many different speculative time travel solutions and scenarios have been put forward over the years. However, the actual physical plausibility of these solutions in the real world remains uncertain.

At its simplest, as we have seen in the section on Relativistic Time , if one were to travel from the Earth at relativistic speeds and then return, then more time would have passed on Earth than for the traveller, so the traveller would, from his perspective, effectively have “travelled into the future”. This is not to say that the traveller suddenly jumped into the Earth’s future, in the way that time travel is often envisioned, but that, as judged by the Earth’s external time, the traveller has experienced less passage of time than his twin who remained on Earth. This is not real time travel, though, but more in the nature of “fast-forwarding” through time: it is a one-way journey forwards with no way back.

There does, however, appear to be some scientific basis within the Theory of Relativity for the possibility of real time travel in certain scenarios. Kurt Gödel showed, back in the early days of relativity, that there are some solutions to the field equations of general relativity that describe space-times so warped that they contain “ closed time-like curves ”, where an individual time-cone twists and closes in on itself, allowing a path from the present to the distant future or the past. Gödel’s solution was the first challenge in centuries to the dominant idea of linear time on which most of physics rests. Although a special case solution, based on an infinite, rotating universe (not the finite, non-rotating universe we actually find ourselves in), other time travel solution have been identified since then that do not require an infinite, rotating universe, but they remain contentious.

In the 1970s, controversial physicist Frank Tipler published his ideas for a “time machine”, using an infinitely long cylinder which spins along its longitudinal axis, which he claimed would allow time travel both forwards and backwards in time without violating the laws of physics, although Stephen Hawking later disproved Tipler’s ideas.

In 1994, Miguel Alcubierre proposed a hypothetical system whereby a spacecraft would contract space in front of it and expand space behind it, resulting in effective faster-than-light travel and therefore (potentially) time travel, but again the practicalities of constructing this kind of a “ warp drive ” remain prohibitive.

Other theoretical physicists like Kip Thorne and Paul Davies have shown how a wormhole in space-time could theoretically provide an instantaneous gateway to different time periods, in much the same way as general relativity allows the theoretical possibility of instantaneous spatial travel through wormholes. Wormholes are tubes or conduits or short-cuts through space-time, where space-time is so warped that it bends back on itself, another science fiction concept made potential reality by the Theory of Relativity. The drawback is that unimaginable amounts of energy would be required to bring about such a wormhole, although experiments looking into the possibility of creating mini-wormholes and mini-black holes are being carried out at the particle accelerator at CERN in Switzerland. It also seems likely that such a wormhole would collapse instantly into a black hole unless some method of holding it open were devised (possibly so-called “negative energy”, which is known to be theoretically possible, but which is not yet practically feasible). Stephen Hawking has suggested that radiation feedback, analogous to feedback in sound, would destroy the wormhole, which would therefore not last long enough to be used as a time machine. Actually controlling where (and when) a wormhole exits is another pitfall.

Another potential time travel possibility, although admittedly something of a long shot, relates to cosmic strings (or quantum strings ), long shreds of energy left over after the Big Bang, thinner than an atom but incredibly dense, that weave through the entire universe. Richard Gott has suggested that if two such cosmic strings were to pass close to each other, or even close to a black hole, the resulting warpage of space-time could well be so severe as to create a closed-time-like curve. However, cosmic strings remain speculative and the chances of finding such a phenomenon are vanishingly small (and, even if it were possible, such a loop may well find itself trapped inside a rotating black hole).

Physicist Ron Mallet has been looking into the possibility of using lasers to control extreme levels of gravity, which could then potentially be used to control time. According to Mallet, circulating beams of laser-controlled light could create similar conditions to a rotating black hole, with its frame-dragging and potential time travel properties.

Others are looking to quantum mechanics for a solution to time travel. In quantum physics, proven concepts such as superposition and entanglement effectively mean that a particle can be in two (or more) places at once. One interpretation of this (see the section on Quantum Time ) is the “ many worlds ” view in which all the different quantum states exist simultaneously in multiple parallel universes within an overall multiverse. If we could gain access to these alternative parallel universes, a form of time travel might then be possible.

At the sub-sub-microscopic level – at the level of so-called quantum foam , tiny bubbles of matter a billion-trillion-trillionths of a centimetre in length, perpetually popping into and out of existence – it is speculated that tiny tunnels or short-cuts through space-time are constantly forming, disappearing and reforming. Some scientists believe that it may be possible to capture such a quantum tunnel and enlarge it many trillions of times to the human scale. However, the idea is still at a very speculative stage,

It should be noted that, with all of these schemes and ideas, it does not look to be possible to travel any further back in time that the time at which the travel technology was devised.

Faster-Than-Light Particles

The equations of relativity imply that faster-than-light ( superluminal ) particles, if they existed, would theoretically travel backwards in time. Therefore, they could, again theoretically, be used to build a kind of “ antitelephone ” to send signals faster than light, and thus communicate backwards in time. Although the Theory of Relativity disallows particles from accelerating from sub-light speed to the speed of light (among other effects, time would slow right down and effectively stop for such a particle, and its mass would increase to infinity), it does not preclude the possibility of particles that ALWAYS travel faster than light. Therefore, the possibility does still exist in theory for faster-than-light travel in the case of a particle with such properties.

There is a rather strange theoretical particle in physics called the tachyon that routinely travels faster than light, with the corollary that such a particle would naturally travel backwards in time as we know it. So, in theory, one could never see such a particle approaching, only leaving, and the particle could even violate the normal order of cause and effect. For a tachyon, the speed of light is the lower speed limit, while the upper speed limit is infinity, and its speed increases as its energy decreases. Even stranger, the mass of a tachyon would technically be an imaginary number (i.e. the number squared is negative), whatever that might actually mean in practice.

It should be stressed that there is no experimental evidence to suggests that tachyons actually exist, and many physicists deny even the possibility. A tachyon has never been observed or recorded (although the search continues, particularly through analysis of cosmic rays and in particle accelerators), and neither has one ever been created, so they remain hypothetical, although theory strongly supports their existence.

Research using MINOS and OPERA detectors has suggested that tiny particles called neutrinos may travel faster than light. Other more recent research from CERN, however, has put the findings into dispute, and the matter remains inconclusive. Neutrinos are not merely hypothetical particles like tachyons, but a well-known part of modern particle physics. But they are tiny, almost-massless, invisible, electrically neutral, weakly-interacting particles that pass right through normal matter, and consequently are very difficult to measure and deal with (even their mass has never been measured accurately).

Time Travel Paradoxes

The possibility of travel backwards in time is generally considered by scientists to be much more unlikely than travel into the future. The idea of time travel to the past is rife with problems, not least the possibility of temporal paradoxes resulting from the violation of causality (i.e. the possibility that an effect could somehow precede its cause). This is most famously exemplified by the grandfather paradox : if a hypothetical time traveller goes back in time and kills his grandfather, the time traveller himself would never be born when he was meant to be; if he is never born, though, he is unable to travel through time and kill his grandfather, which means that he WOULD be born; etc, etc.

Some have sought to justify the possibility of time travel to the past by the very fact that such paradoxes never actually arise in practice. For example, the simple fact that the time traveller DOES exist at the start of his journey is itself proof that he could not kill his grandfather or change the past in any way, either because free will ceases to exist in the past, or because the outcomes of such decisions are predetermined. Or, alternatively, it is argued, any changes made by a hypothetical future time traveller must already have happened in the traveller’s past, resulting in the same reality that the traveller moves from.

Theoretical physicist Stephen Hawking has suggested that the fundamental laws of nature themselves – particularly the idea that causes always precede effects – may prevent time travel in some way. The apparent absence of “tourists from the future” here in our present is another argument, albeit not a rigorous one, that has been put forward against the possibility of time travel, even in a technologically advanced future (the assumption here is that future civilizations, millions of years more technologically advanced than us, should be capable of travel).

Some interpretations of time travel, though, have tried to resolve such potential paradoxes by accepting the possibility of travel between “ branch points ”, parallel realities or parallel universes , so that any new events caused by a time traveller’s visit to the past take place in a different reality and so do not impact on the original time stream. The idea of parallel universes, first put forward by Hugh Everett III in his “ many worlds ” interpretation of quantum theory in the 1950s, is now quite mainstream and accepted by many (although by no means all) physicists.

>> Quantum Time

Physics of Time

Random pages.

Time travel: Is it possible?

Science says time travel is possible, but probably not in the way you're thinking.

time travel graphic illustration of a tunnel with a clock face swirling through the tunnel.

Albert Einstein's theory

General relativity and GPS
Wormhole travel
Alternate theories

Science fiction

Is time travel possible? Short answer: Yes, and you're doing it right now — hurtling into the future at the impressive rate of one second per second.

You're pretty much always moving through time at the same speed, whether you're watching paint dry or wishing you had more hours to visit with a friend from out of town.

But this isn't the kind of time travel that's captivated countless science fiction writers, or spurred a genre so extensive that Wikipedia lists over 400 titles in the category "Movies about Time Travel." In franchises like " Doctor Who ," " Star Trek ," and "Back to the Future" characters climb into some wild vehicle to blast into the past or spin into the future. Once the characters have traveled through time, they grapple with what happens if you change the past or present based on information from the future (which is where time travel stories intersect with the idea of parallel universes or alternate timelines).

Related: The best sci-fi time machines ever

Although many people are fascinated by the idea of changing the past or seeing the future before it's due, no person has ever demonstrated the kind of back-and-forth time travel seen in science fiction or proposed a method of sending a person through significant periods of time that wouldn't destroy them on the way. And, as physicist Stephen Hawking pointed out in his book " Black Holes and Baby Universes" (Bantam, 1994), "The best evidence we have that time travel is not possible, and never will be, is that we have not been invaded by hordes of tourists from the future."

Science does support some amount of time-bending, though. For example, physicist Albert Einstein 's theory of special relativity proposes that time is an illusion that moves relative to an observer. An observer traveling near the speed of light will experience time, with all its aftereffects (boredom, aging, etc.) much more slowly than an observer at rest. That's why astronaut Scott Kelly aged ever so slightly less over the course of a year in orbit than his twin brother who stayed here on Earth.

Related: Controversially, physicist argues that time is real

There are other scientific theories about time travel, including some weird physics that arise around wormholes , black holes and string theory . For the most part, though, time travel remains the domain of an ever-growing array of science fiction books, movies, television shows, comics, video games and more.

Scott and Mark Kelly sit side by side wearing a blue NASA jacket and jeans

Einstein developed his theory of special relativity in 1905. Along with his later expansion, the theory of general relativity , it has become one of the foundational tenets of modern physics. Special relativity describes the relationship between space and time for objects moving at constant speeds in a straight line.

The short version of the theory is deceptively simple. First, all things are measured in relation to something else — that is to say, there is no "absolute" frame of reference. Second, the speed of light is constant. It stays the same no matter what, and no matter where it's measured from. And third, nothing can go faster than the speed of light.

From those simple tenets unfolds actual, real-life time travel. An observer traveling at high velocity will experience time at a slower rate than an observer who isn't speeding through space.

While we don't accelerate humans to near-light-speed, we do send them swinging around the planet at 17,500 mph (28,160 km/h) aboard the International Space Station . Astronaut Scott Kelly was born after his twin brother, and fellow astronaut, Mark Kelly . Scott Kelly spent 520 days in orbit, while Mark logged 54 days in space. The difference in the speed at which they experienced time over the course of their lifetimes has actually widened the age gap between the two men.

"So, where[as] I used to be just 6 minutes older, now I am 6 minutes and 5 milliseconds older," Mark Kelly said in a panel discussion on July 12, 2020, Space.com previously reported . "Now I've got that over his head."

General relativity and GPS time travel

Graphic showing the path of GPS satellites around Earth at the center of the image.

The difference that low earth orbit makes in an astronaut's life span may be negligible — better suited for jokes among siblings than actual life extension or visiting the distant future — but the dilation in time between people on Earth and GPS satellites flying through space does make a difference.

Can wormholes take us back in time?

General relativity might also provide scenarios that could allow travelers to go back in time, according to NASA . But the physical reality of those time-travel methods is no piece of cake.

Wormholes are theoretical "tunnels" through the fabric of space-time that could connect different moments or locations in reality to others. Also known as Einstein-Rosen bridges or white holes, as opposed to black holes, speculation about wormholes abounds. But despite taking up a lot of space (or space-time) in science fiction, no wormholes of any kind have been identified in real life.

Related: Best time travel movies

"The whole thing is very hypothetical at this point," Stephen Hsu, a professor of theoretical physics at the University of Oregon, told Space.com sister site Live Science . "No one thinks we're going to find a wormhole anytime soon."

Primordial wormholes are predicted to be just 10^-34 inches (10^-33 centimeters) at the tunnel's "mouth". Previously, they were expected to be too unstable for anything to be able to travel through them. However, a study claims that this is not the case, Live Science reported .

The theory, which suggests that wormholes could work as viable space-time shortcuts, was described by physicist Pascal Koiran. As part of the study, Koiran used the Eddington-Finkelstein metric, as opposed to the Schwarzschild metric which has been used in the majority of previous analyses.

In the past, the path of a particle could not be traced through a hypothetical wormhole. However, using the Eddington-Finkelstein metric, the physicist was able to achieve just that.

Koiran's paper was described in October 2021, in the preprint database arXiv , before being published in the Journal of Modern Physics D.

Alternate time travel theories

While Einstein's theories appear to make time travel difficult, some researchers have proposed other solutions that could allow jumps back and forth in time. These alternate theories share one major flaw: As far as scientists can tell, there's no way a person could survive the kind of gravitational pulling and pushing that each solution requires.

Infinite cylinder theory

Astronomer Frank Tipler proposed a mechanism (sometimes known as a Tipler Cylinder ) where one could take matter that is 10 times the sun's mass, then roll it into a very long, but very dense cylinder. The Anderson Institute , a time travel research organization, described the cylinder as "a black hole that has passed through a spaghetti factory."

After spinning this black hole spaghetti a few billion revolutions per minute, a spaceship nearby — following a very precise spiral around the cylinder — could travel backward in time on a "closed, time-like curve," according to the Anderson Institute.

The major problem is that in order for the Tipler Cylinder to become reality, the cylinder would need to be infinitely long or be made of some unknown kind of matter. At least for the foreseeable future, endless interstellar pasta is beyond our reach.

Time donuts

Theoretical physicist Amos Ori at the Technion-Israel Institute of Technology in Haifa, Israel, proposed a model for a time machine made out of curved space-time — a donut-shaped vacuum surrounded by a sphere of normal matter.

"The machine is space-time itself," Ori told Live Science . "If we were to create an area with a warp like this in space that would enable time lines to close on themselves, it might enable future generations to return to visit our time."

Amos Ori is a theoretical physicist at the Technion-Israel Institute of Technology in Haifa, Israel. His research interests and publications span the fields of general relativity, black holes, gravitational waves and closed time lines.

There are a few caveats to Ori's time machine. First, visitors to the past wouldn't be able to travel to times earlier than the invention and construction of the time donut. Second, and more importantly, the invention and construction of this machine would depend on our ability to manipulate gravitational fields at will — a feat that may be theoretically possible but is certainly beyond our immediate reach.

Graphic illustration of the TARDIS (Time and Relative Dimensions in Space) traveling through space, surrounded by stars.

Time travel has long occupied a significant place in fiction. Since as early as the "Mahabharata," an ancient Sanskrit epic poem compiled around 400 B.C., humans have dreamed of warping time, Lisa Yaszek, a professor of science fiction studies at the Georgia Institute of Technology in Atlanta, told Live Science .

Every work of time-travel fiction creates its own version of space-time, glossing over one or more scientific hurdles and paradoxes to achieve its plot requirements.

Some make a nod to research and physics, like " Interstellar ," a 2014 film directed by Christopher Nolan. In the movie, a character played by Matthew McConaughey spends a few hours on a planet orbiting a supermassive black hole, but because of time dilation, observers on Earth experience those hours as a matter of decades.

Others take a more whimsical approach, like the "Doctor Who" television series. The series features the Doctor, an extraterrestrial "Time Lord" who travels in a spaceship resembling a blue British police box. "People assume," the Doctor explained in the show, "that time is a strict progression from cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint, it's more like a big ball of wibbly-wobbly, timey-wimey stuff."

Long-standing franchises like the "Star Trek" movies and television series, as well as comic universes like DC and Marvel Comics, revisit the idea of time travel over and over.

Related: Marvel movies in order: chronological & release order

Here is an incomplete (and deeply subjective) list of some influential or notable works of time travel fiction:

Books about time travel:

A sketch from the Christmas Carol shows a cloaked figure on the left and a person kneeling and clutching their head with their hands.

Rip Van Winkle (Cornelius S. Van Winkle, 1819) by Washington Irving
A Christmas Carol (Chapman & Hall, 1843) by Charles Dickens
The Time Machine (William Heinemann, 1895) by H. G. Wells
A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court (Charles L. Webster and Co., 1889) by Mark Twain
The Restaurant at the End of the Universe (Pan Books, 1980) by Douglas Adams
A Tale of Time City (Methuen, 1987) by Diana Wynn Jones
The Outlander series (Delacorte Press, 1991-present) by Diana Gabaldon
Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (Bloomsbury/Scholastic, 1999) by J. K. Rowling
Thief of Time (Doubleday, 2001) by Terry Pratchett
The Time Traveler's Wife (MacAdam/Cage, 2003) by Audrey Niffenegger
All You Need is Kill (Shueisha, 2004) by Hiroshi Sakurazaka

Movies about time travel:

Planet of the Apes (1968)
Superman (1978)
Time Bandits (1981)
The Terminator (1984)
Back to the Future series (1985, 1989, 1990)
Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home (1986)
Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventure (1989)
Groundhog Day (1993)
Galaxy Quest (1999)
The Butterfly Effect (2004)
13 Going on 30 (2004)
The Lake House (2006)
Meet the Robinsons (2007)
Hot Tub Time Machine (2010)
Midnight in Paris (2011)
Looper (2012)
X-Men: Days of Future Past (2014)
Edge of Tomorrow (2014)
Interstellar (2014)
Doctor Strange (2016)
A Wrinkle in Time (2018)
The Last Sharknado: It's About Time (2018)
Avengers: Endgame (2019)
Tenet (2020)
Palm Springs (2020)
Zach Snyder's Justice League (2021)
The Tomorrow War (2021)

Television about time travel:

Image of the Star Trek spaceship USS Enterprise

Doctor Who (1963-present)
The Twilight Zone (1959-1964) (multiple episodes)
Star Trek (multiple series, multiple episodes)
Samurai Jack (2001-2004)
Lost (2004-2010)
Phil of the Future (2004-2006)
Steins;Gate (2011)
Outlander (2014-2023)
Loki (2021-present)

Games about time travel:

Chrono Trigger (1995)
TimeSplitters (2000-2005)
Kingdom Hearts (2002-2019)
Prince of Persia: Sands of Time (2003)
God of War II (2007)
Ratchet and Clank Future: A Crack In Time (2009)
Sly Cooper: Thieves in Time (2013)
Dishonored 2 (2016)
Titanfall 2 (2016)
Outer Wilds (2019)

Additional resources

Explore physicist Peter Millington's thoughts about Stephen Hawking's time travel theories at The Conversation . Check out a kid-friendly explanation of real-world time travel from NASA's Space Place . For an overview of time travel in fiction and the collective consciousness, read " Time Travel: A History " (Pantheon, 2016) by James Gleik.

Join our Space Forums to keep talking space on the latest missions, night sky and more! And if you have a news tip, correction or comment, let us know at: [email protected].

Get the Space.com Newsletter

Breaking space news, the latest updates on rocket launches, skywatching events and more!

Vicky Stein is a science writer based in California. She has a bachelor's degree in ecology and evolutionary biology from Dartmouth College and a graduate certificate in science writing from the University of California, Santa Cruz (2018). Afterwards, she worked as a news assistant for PBS NewsHour, and now works as a freelancer covering anything from asteroids to zebras. Follow her most recent work (and most recent pictures of nudibranchs) on Twitter.

China lands Chang'e 6 sample-return probe on far side of the moon, a lunar success (video)

Science and music festival Starmus VII is about to rock Bratislava with a stellar lineup

Arrokoth the 'space snowman' probably tastes like sweet soap

Bibliography

Academic tools.

Friends PDF Preview
Author and Citation Info
Back to Top

Time Travel and Modern Physics

Time travel has been a staple of science fiction. With the advent of general relativity it has been entertained by serious physicists. But, especially in the philosophy literature, there have been arguments that time travel is inherently paradoxical. The most famous paradox is the grandfather paradox: you travel back in time and kill your grandfather, thereby preventing your own existence. To avoid inconsistency some circumstance will have to occur which makes you fail in this attempt to kill your grandfather. Doesn’t this require some implausible constraint on otherwise unrelated circumstances? We examine such worries in the context of modern physics.

1. Paradoxes Lost?

2. topology and constraints, 3. the general possibility of time travel in general relativity, 4. two toy models, 5. slightly more realistic models of time travel, 6. the possibility of time travel redux, 7. even if there are constraints, so what, 8. computational models, 9. quantum mechanics to the rescue, 10. conclusions, other internet resources, related entries.

Supplement: Remarks and Limitations on the Toy Models

Modern physics strips away many aspects of the manifest image of time. Time as it appears in the equations of classical mechanics has no need for a distinguished present moment, for example. Relativity theory leads to even sharper contrasts. It replaces absolute simultaneity, according to which it is possible to unambiguously determine the time order of distant events, with relative simultaneity: extending an “instant of time” throughout space is not unique, but depends on the state of motion of an observer. More dramatically, in general relativity the mathematical properties of time (or better, of spacetime)—its topology and geometry—depend upon how matter is arranged rather than being fixed once and for all. So physics can be, and indeed has to be, formulated without treating time as a universal, fixed background structure. Since general relativity represents gravity through spacetime geometry, the allowed geometries must be as varied as the ways in which matter can be arranged. Alongside geometrical models used to describe the solar system, black holes, and much else, the scope of variation extends to include some exotic structures unlike anything astrophysicists have observed. In particular, there are spacetime geometries with curves that loop back on themselves: closed timelike curves (CTCs), which describe the possible trajectory of an observer who returns exactly back to their earlier state—without any funny business, such as going faster than the speed of light. These geometries satisfy the relevant physical laws, the equations of general relativity, and in that sense time travel is physically possible.

Yet circular time generates paradoxes, familiar from science fiction stories featuring time travel: [ 1 ]

Consistency: Kurt plans to murder his own grandfather Adolph, by traveling along a CTC to an appropriate moment in the past. He is an able marksman, and waits until he has a clear shot at grandpa. Normally he would not miss. Yet if he succeeds, there is no way that he will then exist to plan and carry out the mission. Kurt pulls the trigger: what can happen?
Underdetermination: Suppose that Kurt first travels back in order to give his earlier self a copy of How to Build a Time Machine. This is the same book that allows him to build a time machine, which he then carries with him on his journey to the past. Who wrote the book?
Easy Knowledge: A fan of classical music enhances their computer with a circuit that exploits a CTC. This machine efficiently solves problems at a higher level of computational complexity than conventional computers, leading (among other things) to finding the smallest circuits that can generate Bach’s oeuvre—and to compose new pieces in the same style. Such easy knowledge is at odds with our understanding of our epistemic predicament. (This third paradox has not drawn as much attention.)

The first two paradoxes were once routinely taken to show that solutions with CTCs should be rejected—with charges varying from violating logic, to being “physically unreasonable”, to undermining the notion of free will. Closer analysis of the paradoxes has largely reversed this consensus. Physicists have discovered many solutions with CTCs and have explored their properties in pursuing foundational questions, such as whether physics is compatible with the idea of objective temporal passage (starting with Gödel 1949). Philosophers have also used time travel scenarios to probe questions about, among other things, causation, modality, free will, and identity (see, e.g., Earman 1972 and Lewis’s seminal 1976 paper).

We begin below with Consistency , turning to the other paradoxes in later sections. A standard, stone-walling response is to insist that the past cannot be changed, as a matter of logic, even by a time traveler (e.g., Gödel 1949, Clarke 1977, Horwich 1987). Adolph cannot both die and survive, as a matter of logic, so any scheme to alter the past must fail. In many of the best time travel fictions, the actions of a time traveler are constrained in novel and unexpected ways. Attempts to change the past fail, and they fail, often tragically, in just such a way that they set the stage for the time traveler’s self-defeating journey. The first question is whether there is an analog of the consistent story when it comes to physics in the presence of CTCs. As we will see, there is a remarkable general argument establishing the existence of consistent solutions. Yet a second question persists: why can’t time-traveling Kurt kill his own grandfather? Doesn’t the necessity of failures to change the past put unusual and unexpected constraints on time travelers, or objects that move along CTCs? The same argument shows that there are in fact no constraints imposed by the existence of CTCs, in some cases. After discussing this line of argument, we will turn to the palatability and further implications of such constraints if they are required, and then turn to the implications of quantum mechanics.

Wheeler and Feynman (1949) were the first to claim that the fact that nature is continuous could be used to argue that causal influences from later events to earlier events, as are made possible by time travel, will not lead to paradox without the need for any constraints. Maudlin (1990) showed how to make their argument precise and more general, and argued that nonetheless it was not completely general.

Imagine the following set-up. We start off having a camera with a black and white film ready to take a picture of whatever comes out of the time machine. An object, in fact a developed film, comes out of the time machine. We photograph it, and develop the film. The developed film is subsequently put in the time machine, and set to come out of the time machine at the time the picture is taken. This surely will create a paradox: the developed film will have the opposite distribution of black, white, and shades of gray, from the object that comes out of the time machine. For developed black and white films (i.e., negatives) have the opposite shades of gray from the objects they are pictures of. But since the object that comes out of the time machine is the developed film itself it we surely have a paradox.

However, it does not take much thought to realize that there is no paradox here. What will happen is that a uniformly gray picture will emerge, which produces a developed film that has exactly the same uniform shade of gray. No matter what the sensitivity of the film is, as long as the dependence of the brightness of the developed film depends in a continuous manner on the brightness of the object being photographed, there will be a shade of gray that, when photographed, will produce exactly the same shade of gray on the developed film. This is the essence of Wheeler and Feynman’s idea. Let us first be a bit more precise and then a bit more general.

For simplicity let us suppose that the film is always a uniform shade of gray (i.e., at any time the shade of gray does not vary by location on the film). The possible shades of gray of the film can then be represented by the (real) numbers from 0, representing pure black, to 1, representing pure white.

Let us now distinguish various stages in the chronological order of the life of the film. In stage $S_1$ the film is young; it has just been placed in the camera and is ready to be exposed. It is then exposed to the object that comes out of the time machine. (That object in fact is a later stage of the film itself). By the time we come to stage $S_2$ of the life of the film, it has been developed and is about to enter the time machine. Stage $S_3$ occurs just after it exits the time machine and just before it is photographed. Stage $S_4$ occurs after it has been photographed and before it starts fading away. Let us assume that the film starts out in stage $S_1$ in some uniform shade of gray, and that the only significant change in the shade of gray of the film occurs between stages $S_1$ and $S_2$. During that period it acquires a shade of gray that depends on the shade of gray of the object that was photographed. In other words, the shade of gray that the film acquires at stage $S_2$ depends on the shade of gray it has at stage $S_3$. The influence of the shade of gray of the film at stage $S_3$, on the shade of gray of the film at stage $S_2$, can be represented as a mapping, or function, from the real numbers between 0 and 1 (inclusive), to the real numbers between 0 and 1 (inclusive). Let us suppose that the process of photography is such that if one imagines varying the shade of gray of an object in a smooth, continuous manner then the shade of gray of the developed picture of that object will also vary in a smooth, continuous manner. This implies that the function in question will be a continuous function. Now any continuous function from the real numbers between 0 and 1 (inclusive) to the real numbers between 0 and 1 (inclusive) must map at least one number to itself. One can quickly convince oneself of this by graphing such functions. For one will quickly see that any continuous function $f$ from $[0,1]$ to $[0,1]$ must intersect the line $x=y$ somewhere, and thus there must be at least one point $x$ such that $f(x)=x$. Such points are called fixed points of the function. Now let us think about what such a fixed point represents. It represents a shade of gray such that, when photographed, it will produce a developed film with exactly that same shade of gray. The existence of such a fixed point implies a solution to the apparent paradox.

Let us now be more general and allow color photography. One can represent each possible color of an object (of uniform color) by the proportions of blue, green and red that make up that color. (This is why television screens can produce all possible colors.) Thus one can represent all possible colors of an object by three points on three orthogonal lines $x, y$ and $z$, that is to say, by a point in a three-dimensional cube. This cube is also known as the “Cartesian product” of the three line segments. Now, one can also show that any continuous map from such a cube to itself must have at least one fixed point. So color photography can not be used to create time travel paradoxes either!

Even more generally, consider some system $P$ which, as in the above example, has the following life. It starts in some state $S_1$, it interacts with an object that comes out of a time machine (which happens to be its older self), it travels back in time, it interacts with some object (which happens to be its younger self), and finally it grows old and dies. Let us assume that the set of possible states of $P$ can be represented by a Cartesian product of $n$ closed intervals of the reals, i.e., let us assume that the topology of the state-space of $P$ is isomorphic to a finite Cartesian product of closed intervals of the reals. Let us further assume that the development of $P$ in time, and the dependence of that development on the state of objects that it interacts with, is continuous. Then, by a well-known fixed point theorem in topology (see, e.g., Hocking & Young 1961: 273), no matter what the nature of the interaction is, and no matter what the initial state of the object is, there will be at least one state $S_3$ of the older system (as it emerges from the time travel machine) that will influence the initial state $S_1$ of the younger system (when it encounters the older system) so that, as the younger system becomes older, it develops exactly into state $S_3$. Thus without imposing any constraints on the initial state $S_1$ of the system $P$, we have shown that there will always be perfectly ordinary, non-paradoxical, solutions, in which everything that happens, happens according to the usual laws of development. Of course, there is looped causation, hence presumably also looped explanation, but what do you expect if there is looped time?

Unfortunately, for the fan of time travel, a little reflection suggests that there are systems for which the needed fixed point theorem does not hold. Imagine, for instance, that we have a dial that can only rotate in a plane. We are going to put the dial in the time machine. Indeed we have decided that if we see the later stage of the dial come out of the time machine set at angle $x$, then we will set the dial to $x+90$, and throw it into the time machine. Now it seems we have a paradox, since the mapping that consists of a rotation of all points in a circular state-space by 90 degrees does not have a fixed point. And why wouldn’t some state-spaces have the topology of a circle?

However, we have so far not used another continuity assumption which is also a reasonable assumption. So far we have only made the following demand: the state the dial is in at stage $S_2$ must be a continuous function of the state of the dial at stage $S_3$. But, the state of the dial at stage $S_2$ is arrived at by taking the state of the dial at stage $S_1$, and rotating it over some angle. It is not merely the case that the effect of the interaction, namely the state of the dial at stage $S_2$, should be a continuous function of the cause, namely the state of the dial at stage $S_3$. It is additionally the case that path taken to get there, the way the dial is rotated between stages $S_1$ and $S_2$ must be a continuous function of the state at stage $S_3$. And, rather surprisingly, it turns out that this can not be done. Let us illustrate what the problem is before going to a more general demonstration that there must be a fixed point solution in the dial case.

Forget time travel for the moment. Suppose that you and I each have a watch with a single dial neither of which is running. My watch is set at 12. You are going to announce what your watch is set at. My task is going to be to adjust my watch to yours no matter what announcement you make. And my actions should have a continuous (single valued) dependence on the time that you announce. Surprisingly, this is not possible! For instance, suppose that if you announce “12”, then I achieve that setting on my watch by doing nothing. Now imagine slowly and continuously increasing the announced times, starting at 12. By continuity, I must achieve each of those settings by rotating my dial to the right. If at some point I switch and achieve the announced goal by a rotation of my dial to the left, I will have introduced a discontinuity in my actions, a discontinuity in the actions that I take as a function of the announced angle. So I will be forced, by continuity, to achieve every announcement by rotating the dial to the right. But, this rotation to the right will have to be abruptly discontinued as the announcements grow larger and I eventually approach 12 again, since I achieved 12 by not rotating the dial at all. So, there will be a discontinuity at 12 at the latest. In general, continuity of my actions as a function of announced times can not be maintained throughout if I am to be able to replicate all possible settings. Another way to see the problem is that one can similarly reason that, as one starts with 12, and imagines continuously making the announced times earlier, one will be forced, by continuity, to achieve the announced times by rotating the dial to the left. But the conclusions drawn from the assumption of continuous increases and the assumption of continuous decreases are inconsistent. So we have an inconsistency following from the assumption of continuity and the assumption that I always manage to set my watch to your watch. So, a dial developing according to a continuous dynamics from a given initial state, can not be set up so as to react to a second dial, with which it interacts, in such a way that it is guaranteed to always end up set at the same angle as the second dial. Similarly, it can not be set up so that it is guaranteed to always end up set at 90 degrees to the setting of the second dial. All of this has nothing to do with time travel. However, the impossibility of such set ups is what prevents us from enacting the rotation by 90 degrees that would create paradox in the time travel setting.

Let us now give the positive result that with such dials there will always be fixed point solutions, as long as the dynamics is continuous. Let us call the state of the dial before it interacts with its older self the initial state of the dial. And let us call the state of the dial after it emerges from the time machine the final state of the dial. There is also an intermediate state of the dial, after it interacts with its older self and before it is put into the time machine. We can represent the initial or intermediate states of the dial, before it goes into the time machine, as an angle $x$ in the horizontal plane and the final state of the dial, after it comes out of the time machine, as an angle $y$ in the vertical plane. All possible $\langle x,y\rangle$ pairs can thus be visualized as a torus with each $x$ value picking out a vertical circular cross-section and each $y$ picking out a point on that cross-section. See figure 1 .

Figure 1 [An extended description of figure 1 is in the supplement.]

Suppose that the dial starts at angle $i$ which picks out vertical circle $I$ on the torus. The initial angle $i$ that the dial is at before it encounters its older self, and the set of all possible final angles that the dial can have when it emerges from the time machine is represented by the circle $I$ on the torus (see figure 1 ). Given any possible angle of the emerging dial, the dial initially at angle $i$ will develop to some other angle. One can picture this development by rotating each point on $I$ in the horizontal direction by the relevant amount. Since the rotation has to depend continuously on the angle of the emerging dial, circle $I$ during this development will deform into some loop $L$ on the torus. Loop $L$ thus represents all possible intermediate angles $x$ that the dial is at when it is thrown into the time machine, given that it started at angle $i$ and then encountered a dial (its older self) which was at angle $y$ when it emerged from the time machine. We therefore have consistency if $x=y$ for some $x$ and $y$ on loop $L$. Now, let loop $C$ be the loop which consists of all the points on the torus for which $x=y$. Ring $I$ intersects $C$ at point $\langle i,i\rangle$. Obviously any continuous deformation of $I$ must still intersect $C$ somewhere. So $L$ must intersect $C$ somewhere, say at $\langle j,j\rangle$. But that means that no matter how the development of the dial starting at $I$ depends on the angle of the emerging dial, there will be some angle for the emerging dial such that the dial will develop exactly into that angle (by the time it enters the time machine) under the influence of that emerging dial. This is so no matter what angle one starts with, and no matter how the development depends on the angle of the emerging dial. Thus even for a circular state-space there are no constraints needed other than continuity.

Unfortunately there are state-spaces that escape even this argument. Consider for instance a pointer that can be set to all values between 0 and 1, where 0 and 1 are not possible values. That is, suppose that we have a state-space that is isomorphic to an open set of real numbers. Now suppose that we have a machine that sets the pointer to half the value that the pointer is set at when it emerges from the time machine.

Figure 2 [An extended description of figure 2 is in the supplement.]

Suppose the pointer starts at value $I$. As before we can represent the combination of this initial position and all possible final positions by the line $I$. Under the influence of the pointer coming out of the time machine the pointer value will develop to a value that equals half the value of the final value that it encountered. We can represent this development as the continuous deformation of line $I$ into line $L$, which is indicated by the arrows in figure 2 . This development is fully continuous. Points $\langle x,y\rangle$ on line $I$ represent the initial position $x=I$ of the (young) pointer, and the position $y$ of the older pointer as it emerges from the time machine. Points $\langle x,y\rangle$ on line $L$ represent the position $x$ that the younger pointer should develop into, given that it encountered the older pointer emerging from the time machine set at position $y$. Since the pointer is designed to develop to half the value of the pointer that it encounters, the line $L$ corresponds to $x=1/2 y$. We have consistency if there is some point such that it develops into that point, if it encounters that point. Thus, we have consistency if there is some point $\langle x,y\rangle$ on line $L$ such that $x=y$. However, there is no such point: lines $L$ and $C$ do not intersect. Thus there is no consistent solution, despite the fact that the dynamics is fully continuous.

Of course if 0 were a possible value, $L$ and $C$ would intersect at 0. This is surprising and strange: adding one point to the set of possible values of a quantity here makes the difference between paradox and peace. One might be tempted to just add the extra point to the state-space in order to avoid problems. After all, one might say, surely no measurements could ever tell us whether the set of possible values includes that exact point or not. Unfortunately there can be good theoretical reasons for supposing that some quantity has a state-space that is open: the set of all possible speeds of massive objects in special relativity surely is an open set, since it includes all speeds up to, but not including, the speed of light. Quantities that have possible values that are not bounded also lead to counter examples to the presented fixed point argument. And it is not obvious to us why one should exclude such possibilities. So the argument that no constraints are needed is not fully general.

An interesting question of course is: exactly for which state-spaces must there be such fixed points? The arguments above depend on a well-known fixed point theorem (due to Schauder) that guarantees the existence of a fixed point for compact, convex state spaces. We do not know what subsequent extensions of this result imply regarding fixed points for a wider variety of systems, or whether there are other general results along these lines. (See Kutach 2003 for more on this issue.)

A further interesting question is whether this line of argument is sufficient to resolve Consistency (see also Dowe 2007). When they apply, these results establish the existence of a solution, such as the shade of uniform gray in the first example. But physicists routinely demand more than merely the existence of a solution, namely that solutions to the equations are stable—such that “small” changes of the initial state lead to “small” changes of the resulting trajectory. (Clarifying the two senses of “small” in this statement requires further work, specifying the relevant topology.) Stability in this sense underwrites the possibility of applying equations to real systems given our inability to fix initial states with indefinite precision. (See Fletcher 2020 for further discussion.) The fixed point theorems guarantee that for an initial state $S_1$ there is a solution, but this solution may not be “close” to the solution for a nearby initial state, $S'$. We are not aware of any proofs that the solutions guaranteed to exist by the fixed point theorems are also stable in this sense.

Time travel has recently been discussed quite extensively in the context of general relativity. General relativity places few constraints on the global structure of space and time. This flexibility leads to a possibility first described in print by Hermann Weyl:

Every world-point is the origin of the double-cone of the active future and the passive past [i.e., the two lobes of the light cone]. Whereas in the special theory of relativity these two portions are separated by an intervening region, it is certainly possible in the present case [i.e., general relativity] for the cone of the active future to overlap with that of the passive past; so that, in principle, it is possible to experience events now that will in part be an effect of my future resolves and actions. Moreover, it is not impossible for a world-line (in particular, that of my body), although it has a timelike direction at every point, to return to the neighborhood of a point which it has already once passed through. (Weyl 1918/1920 [1952: 274])

A time-like curve is simply a space-time trajectory such that the speed of light is never equaled or exceeded along this trajectory. Time-like curves represent possible trajectories of ordinary objects. In general relativity a curve that is everywhere timelike locally can nonetheless loop back on itself, forming a CTC. Weyl makes the point vividly in terms of the light cones: along such a curve, the future lobe of the light cone (the “active future”) intersects the past lobe of the light cone (the “passive past”). Traveling along such a curve one would never exceed the speed of light, and yet after a certain amount of (proper) time one would return to a point in space-time that one previously visited. Or, by staying close to such a CTC, one could come arbitrarily close to a point in space-time that one previously visited. General relativity, in a straightforward sense, allows time travel: there appear to be many space-times compatible with the fundamental equations of general relativity in which there are CTC’s. Space-time, for instance, could have a Minkowski metric everywhere, and yet have CTC’s everywhere by having the temporal dimension (topologically) rolled up as a circle. Or, one can have wormhole connections between different parts of space-time which allow one to enter “mouth $A$” of such a wormhole connection, travel through the wormhole, exit the wormhole at “mouth $B$” and re-enter “mouth $A$” again. CTCs can even arise when the spacetime is topologically $\mathbb{R}^4$, due to the “tilting” of light cones produced by rotating matter (as in Gödel 1949’s spacetime).

General relativity thus appears to provide ample opportunity for time travel. Note that just because there are CTC’s in a space-time, this does not mean that one can get from any point in the space-time to any other point by following some future directed timelike curve—there may be insurmountable practical obstacles. In Gödel’s spacetime, it is the case that there are CTCs passing through every point in the spacetime. Yet these CTCs are not geodesics, so traversing them requires acceleration. Calculations of the minimal fuel required to travel along the appropriate curve should discourage any would-be time travelers (Malament 1984, 1985; Manchak 2011). But more generally CTCs may be confined to smaller regions; some parts of space-time can have CTC’s while other parts do not. Let us call the part of a space-time that has CTC’s the “time travel region” of that space-time, while calling the rest of that space-time the “normal region”. More precisely, the “time travel region” consists of all the space-time points $p$ such that there exists a (non-zero length) timelike curve that starts at $p$ and returns to $p$. Now let us turn to examining space-times with CTC’s a bit more closely for potential problems.

In order to get a feeling for the sorts of implications that closed timelike curves can have, it may be useful to consider two simple models. In space-times with closed timelike curves the traditional initial value problem cannot be framed in the usual way. For it presupposes the existence of Cauchy surfaces, and if there are CTCs then no Cauchy surface exists. (A Cauchy surface is a spacelike surface such that every inextendable timelike curve crosses it exactly once. One normally specifies initial conditions by giving the conditions on such a surface.) Nonetheless, if the topological complexities of the manifold are appropriately localized, we can come quite close. Let us call an edgeless spacelike surface $S$ a quasi-Cauchy surface if it divides the rest of the manifold into two parts such that

every point in the manifold can be connected by a timelike curve to $S$, and
any timelike curve which connects a point in one region to a point in the other region intersects $S$ exactly once.

It is obvious that a quasi-Cauchy surface must entirely inhabit the normal region of the space-time; if any point $p$ of $S$ is in the time travel region, then any timelike curve which intersects $p$ can be extended to a timelike curve which intersects $S$ near $p$ again. In extreme cases of time travel, a model may have no normal region at all (e.g., Minkowski space-time rolled up like a cylinder in a time-like direction), in which case our usual notions of temporal precedence will not apply. But temporal anomalies like wormholes (and time machines) can be sufficiently localized to permit the existence of quasi-Cauchy surfaces.

Given a timelike orientation, a quasi-Cauchy surface unproblematically divides the manifold into its past (i.e., all points that can be reached by past-directed timelike curves from $S)$ and its future (ditto mutatis mutandis ). If the whole past of $S$ is in the normal region of the manifold, then $S$ is a partial Cauchy surface : every inextendable timelike curve which exists to the past of $S$ intersects $S$ exactly once, but (if there is time travel in the future) not every inextendable timelike curve which exists to the future of $S$ intersects $S$. Now we can ask a particularly clear question: consider a manifold which contains a time travel region, but also has a partial Cauchy surface $S$, such that all of the temporal funny business is to the future of $S$. If all you could see were $S$ and its past, you would not know that the space-time had any time travel at all. The question is: are there any constraints on the sort of data which can be put on $S$ and continued to a global solution of the dynamics which are different from the constraints (if any) on the data which can be put on a Cauchy surface in a simply connected manifold and continued to a global solution? If there is time travel to our future, might we we able to tell this now, because of some implied oddity in the arrangement of present things?

It is not at all surprising that there might be constraints on the data which can be put on a locally space-like surface which passes through the time travel region: after all, we never think we can freely specify what happens on a space-like surface and on another such surface to its future, but in this case the surface at issue lies to its own future. But if there were particular constraints for data on a partial Cauchy surface then we would apparently need to have to rule out some sorts of otherwise acceptable states on $S$ if there is to be time travel to the future of $S$. We then might be able to establish that there will be no time travel in the future by simple inspection of the present state of the universe. As we will see, there is reason to suspect that such constraints on the partial Cauchy surface are non-generic. But we are getting ahead of ourselves: first let’s consider the effect of time travel on a very simple dynamics.

The simplest possible example is the Newtonian theory of perfectly elastic collisions among equally massive particles in one spatial dimension. The space-time is two-dimensional, so we can represent it initially as the Euclidean plane, and the dynamics is completely specified by two conditions. When particles are traveling freely, their world lines are straight lines in the space-time, and when two particles collide, they exchange momenta, so the collision looks like an “$X$” in space-time, with each particle changing its momentum at the impact. [ 2 ] The dynamics is purely local, in that one can check that a set of world-lines constitutes a model of the dynamics by checking that the dynamics is obeyed in every arbitrarily small region. It is also trivial to generate solutions from arbitrary initial data if there are no CTCs: given the initial positions and momenta of a set of particles, one simply draws a straight line from each particle in the appropriate direction and continues it indefinitely. Once all the lines are drawn, the worldline of each particle can be traced from collision to collision. The boundary value problem for this dynamics is obviously well-posed: any set of data at an instant yields a unique global solution, constructed by the method sketched above.

What happens if we change the topology of the space-time by hand to produce CTCs? The simplest way to do this is depicted in figure 3 : we cut and paste the space-time so it is no longer simply connected by identifying the line $L-$ with the line $L+$. Particles “going in” to $L+$ from below “emerge” from $L-$ , and particles “going in” to $L-$ from below “emerge” from $L+$.

Figure 3: Inserting CTCs by Cut and Paste. [An extended description of figure 3 is in the supplement.]

How is the boundary-value problem changed by this alteration in the space-time? Before the cut and paste, we can put arbitrary data on the simultaneity slice $S$ and continue it to a unique solution. After the change in topology, $S$ is no longer a Cauchy surface, since a CTC will never intersect it, but it is a partial Cauchy surface. So we can ask two questions. First, can arbitrary data on $S$ always be continued to a global solution? Second, is that solution unique? If the answer to the first question is $no$, then we have a backward-temporal constraint: the existence of the region with CTCs places constraints on what can happen on $S$ even though that region lies completely to the future of $S$. If the answer to the second question is $no$, then we have an odd sort of indeterminism, analogous to the unwritten book: the complete physical state on $S$ does not determine the physical state in the future, even though the local dynamics is perfectly deterministic and even though there is no other past edge to the space-time region in $S$’s future (i.e., there is nowhere else for boundary values to come from which could influence the state of the region).

In this case the answer to the first question is yes and to the second is no : there are no constraints on the data which can be put on $S$, but those data are always consistent with an infinitude of different global solutions. The easy way to see that there always is a solution is to construct the minimal solution in the following way. Start drawing straight lines from $S$ as required by the initial data. If a line hits $L-$ from the bottom, just continue it coming out of the top of $L+$ in the appropriate place, and if a line hits $L+$ from the bottom, continue it emerging from $L-$ at the appropriate place. Figure 4 represents the minimal solution for a single particle which enters the time-travel region from the left:

Figure 4: The Minimal Solution. [An extended description of figure 4 is in the supplement.]

The particle “travels back in time” three times. It is obvious that this minimal solution is a global solution, since the particle always travels inertially.

But the same initial state on $S$ is also consistent with other global solutions. The new requirement imposed by the topology is just that the data going into $L+$ from the bottom match the data coming out of $L-$ from the top, and the data going into $L-$ from the bottom match the data coming out of $L+$ from the top. So we can add any number of vertical lines connecting $L-$ and $L+$ to a solution and still have a solution. For example, adding a few such lines to the minimal solution yields:

Figure 5: A Non-Minimal Solution. [An extended description of figure 5 is in the supplement.]

The particle now collides with itself twice: first before it reaches $L+$ for the first time, and again shortly before it exits the CTC region. From the particle’s point of view, it is traveling to the right at a constant speed until it hits an older version of itself and comes to rest. It remains at rest until it is hit from the right by a younger version of itself, and then continues moving off, and the same process repeats later. It is clear that this is a global model of the dynamics, and that any number of distinct models could be generating by varying the number and placement of vertical lines.

Knowing the data on $S$, then, gives us only incomplete information about how things will go for the particle. We know that the particle will enter the CTC region, and will reach $L+$, we know that it will be the only particle in the universe, we know exactly where and with what speed it will exit the CTC region. But we cannot determine how many collisions the particle will undergo (if any), nor how long (in proper time) it will stay in the CTC region. If the particle were a clock, we could not predict what time it would indicate when exiting the region. Furthermore, the dynamics gives us no handle on what to think of the various possibilities: there are no probabilities assigned to the various distinct possible outcomes.

Changing the topology has changed the mathematics of the situation in two ways, which tend to pull in opposite directions. On the one hand, $S$ is no longer a Cauchy surface, so it is perhaps not surprising that data on $S$ do not suffice to fix a unique global solution. But on the other hand, there is an added constraint: data “coming out” of $L-$ must exactly match data “going in” to $L+$, even though what comes out of $L-$ helps to determine what goes into $L+$. This added consistency constraint tends to cut down on solutions, although in this case the additional constraint is more than outweighed by the freedom to consider various sorts of data on ${L+}/{L-}$.

The fact that the extra freedom outweighs the extra constraint also points up one unexpected way that the supposed paradoxes of time travel may be overcome. Let’s try to set up a paradoxical situation using the little closed time loop above. If we send a single particle into the loop from the left and do nothing else, we know exactly where it will exit the right side of the time travel region. Now suppose we station someone at the other side of the region with the following charge: if the particle should come out on the right side, the person is to do something to prevent the particle from going in on the left in the first place. In fact, this is quite easy to do: if we send a particle in from the right, it seems that it can exit on the left and deflect the incoming left-hand particle.

Carrying on our reflection in this way, we further realize that if the particle comes out on the right, we might as well send it back in order to deflect itself from entering in the first place. So all we really need to do is the following: set up a perfectly reflecting particle mirror on the right-hand side of the time travel region, and launch the particle from the left so that— if nothing interferes with it —it will just barely hit $L+$. Our paradox is now apparently complete. If, on the one hand, nothing interferes with the particle it will enter the time-travel region on the left, exit on the right, be reflected from the mirror, re-enter from the right, and come out on the left to prevent itself from ever entering. So if it enters, it gets deflected and never enters. On the other hand, if it never enters then nothing goes in on the left, so nothing comes out on the right, so nothing is reflected back, and there is nothing to deflect it from entering. So if it doesn’t enter, then there is nothing to deflect it and it enters. If it enters, then it is deflected and doesn’t enter; if it doesn’t enter then there is nothing to deflect it and it enters: paradox complete.

But at least one solution to the supposed paradox is easy to construct: just follow the recipe for constructing the minimal solution, continuing the initial trajectory of the particle (reflecting it the mirror in the obvious way) and then read of the number and trajectories of the particles from the resulting diagram. We get the result of figure 6 :

Figure 6: Resolving the “Paradox”. [An extended description of figure 6 is in the supplement.]

As we can see, the particle approaching from the left never reaches $L+$: it is deflected first by a particle which emerges from $L-$. But it is not deflected by itself , as the paradox suggests, it is deflected by another particle. Indeed, there are now four particles in the diagram: the original particle and three particles which are confined to closed time-like curves. It is not the leftmost particle which is reflected by the mirror, nor even the particle which deflects the leftmost particle; it is another particle altogether.

The paradox gets it traction from an incorrect presupposition. If there is only one particle in the world at $S$ then there is only one particle which could participate in an interaction in the time travel region: the single particle would have to interact with its earlier (or later) self. But there is no telling what might come out of $L-$: the only requirement is that whatever comes out must match what goes in at $L+$. So if you go to the trouble of constructing a working time machine, you should be prepared for a different kind of disappointment when you attempt to go back and kill yourself: you may be prevented from entering the machine in the first place by some completely unpredictable entity which emerges from it. And once again a peculiar sort of indeterminism appears: if there are many self-consistent things which could prevent you from entering, there is no telling which is even likely to materialize. This is just like the case of the unwritten book: the book is never written, so nothing determines what fills its pages.

So when the freedom to put data on $L-$ outweighs the constraint that the same data go into $L+$, instead of paradox we get an embarrassment of riches: many solution consistent with the data on $S$, or many possible books. To see a case where the constraint “outweighs” the freedom, we need to construct a very particular, and frankly artificial, dynamics and topology. Consider the space of all linear dynamics for a scalar field on a lattice. (The lattice can be though of as a simple discrete space-time.) We will depict the space-time lattice as a directed graph. There is to be a scalar field defined at every node of the graph, whose value at a given node depends linearly on the values of the field at nodes which have arrows which lead to it. Each edge of the graph can be assigned a weighting factor which determines how much the field at the input node contributes to the field at the output node. If we name the nodes by the letters a , b , c , etc., and the edges by their endpoints in the obvious way, then we can label the weighting factors by the edges they are associated with in an equally obvious way.

Suppose that the graph of the space-time lattice is acyclic , as in figure 7 . (A graph is Acyclic if one can not travel in the direction of the arrows and go in a loop.)

Figure 7: An Acyclic Lattice. [An extended description of figure 7 is in the supplement.]

It is easy to regard a set of nodes as the analog of a Cauchy surface, e.g., the set $\{a, b, c\}$, and it is obvious if arbitrary data are put on those nodes the data will generate a unique solution in the future. [ 3 ] If the value of the field at node $a$ is 3 and at node $b$ is 7, then its value at node $d$ will be $3W_{ad}$ and its value at node $e$ will be $3W_{ae} + 7W_{be}$. By varying the weighting factors we can adjust the dynamics, but in an acyclic graph the future evolution of the field will always be unique.

Let us now again artificially alter the topology of the lattice to admit CTCs, so that the graph now is cyclic. One of the simplest such graphs is depicted in figure 8 : there are now paths which lead from $z$ back to itself, e.g., $z$ to $y$ to $z$.

Figure 8: Time Travel on a Lattice. [An extended description of figure 8 is in the supplement.]

Can we now put arbitrary data on $v$ and $w$, and continue that data to a global solution? Will the solution be unique?

In the generic case, there will be a solution and the solution will be unique. The equations for the value of the field at $x, y$, and $z$ are:

Solving these equations for $z$ yields

which gives a unique value for $z$ in the generic case. But looking at the space of all possible dynamics for this lattice (i.e., the space of all possible weighting factors), we find a singularity in the case where $1-W_{zx}W_{xz} - W_{zy}W_{yz} = 0$. If we choose weighting factors in just this way, then arbitrary data at $v$ and $w$ cannot be continued to a global solution. Indeed, if the scalar field is everywhere non-negative, then this particular choice of dynamics puts ironclad constraints on the value of the field at $v$ and $w$: the field there must be zero (assuming $W_{vx}$ and $W_{wy}$ to be non-zero), and similarly all nodes in their past must have field value zero. If the field can take negative values, then the values at $v$ and $w$ must be so chosen that $vW_{vx}W_{xz} = -wW_{wy}W_{yz}$. In either case, the field values at $v$ and $w$ are severely constrained by the existence of the CTC region even though these nodes lie completely to the past of that region. It is this sort of constraint which we find to be unlike anything which appears in standard physics.

Our toy models suggest three things. The first is that it may be impossible to prove in complete generality that arbitrary data on a partial Cauchy surface can always be continued to a global solution: our artificial case provides an example where it cannot. The second is that such odd constraints are not likely to be generic: we had to delicately fine-tune the dynamics to get a problem. The third is that the opposite problem, namely data on a partial Cauchy surface being consistent with many different global solutions, is likely to be generic: we did not have to do any fine-tuning to get this result.

This third point leads to a peculiar sort of indeterminism, illustrated by the case of the unwritten book: the entire state on $S$ does not determine what will happen in the future even though the local dynamics is deterministic and there are no other “edges” to space-time from which data could influence the result. What happens in the time travel region is constrained but not determined by what happens on $S$, and the dynamics does not even supply any probabilities for the various possibilities. The example of the photographic negative discussed in section 2, then, seems likely to be unusual, for in that case there is a unique fixed point for the dynamics, and the set-up plus the dynamical laws determine the outcome. In the generic case one would rather expect multiple fixed points, with no room for anything to influence, even probabilistically, which would be realized. (See the supplement on

Remarks and Limitations on the Toy Models .

It is ironic that time travel should lead generically not to contradictions or to constraints (in the normal region) but to underdetermination of what happens in the time travel region by what happens everywhere else (an underdetermination tied neither to a probabilistic dynamics nor to a free edge to space-time). The traditional objection to time travel is that it leads to contradictions: there is no consistent way to complete an arbitrarily constructed story about how the time traveler intends to act. Instead, though, it appears that the more significant problem is underdetermination: the story can be consistently completed in many different ways.

Echeverria, Klinkhammer, and Thorne (1991) considered the case of 3-dimensional single hard spherical ball that can go through a single time travel wormhole so as to collide with its younger self.

Figure 9 [An extended description of figure 9 is in the supplement.]

The threat of paradox in this case arises in the following form. Consider the initial trajectory of a ball as it approaches the time travel region. For some initial trajectories, the ball does not undergo a collision before reaching mouth 1, but upon exiting mouth 2 it will collide with its earlier self. This leads to a contradiction if the collision is strong enough to knock the ball off its trajectory and deflect it from entering mouth 1. Of course, the Wheeler-Feynman strategy is to look for a “glancing blow” solution: a collision which will produce exactly the (small) deviation in trajectory of the earlier ball that produces exactly that collision. Are there always such solutions? [ 4 ]

Echeverria, Klinkhammer & Thorne found a large class of initial trajectories that have consistent “glancing blow” continuations, and found none that do not (but their search was not completely general). They did not produce a rigorous proof that every initial trajectory has a consistent continuation, but suggested that it is very plausible that every initial trajectory has a consistent continuation. That is to say, they have made it very plausible that, in the billiard ball wormhole case, the time travel structure of such a wormhole space-time does not result in constraints on states on spacelike surfaces in the non-time travel region.

In fact, as one might expect from our discussion in the previous section, they found the opposite problem from that of inconsistency: they found underdetermination. For a large class of initial trajectories there are multiple different consistent “glancing blow” continuations of that trajectory (many of which involve multiple wormhole traversals). For example, if one initially has a ball that is traveling on a trajectory aimed straight between the two mouths, then one obvious solution is that the ball passes between the two mouths and never time travels. But another solution is that the younger ball gets knocked into mouth 1 exactly so as to come out of mouth 2 and produce that collision. Echeverria et al. do not note the possibility (which we pointed out in the previous section) of the existence of additional balls in the time travel region. We conjecture (but have no proof) that for every initial trajectory of $A$ there are some, and generically many, multiple-ball continuations.

Friedman, Morris, et al. (1990) examined the case of source-free non-self-interacting scalar fields traveling through such a time travel wormhole and found that no constraints on initial conditions in the non-time travel region are imposed by the existence of such time travel wormholes. In general there appear to be no known counter examples to the claim that in “somewhat realistic” time-travel space-times with a partial Cauchy surface there are no constraints imposed on the state on such a partial Cauchy surface by the existence of CTC’s. (See, e.g., Friedman & Morris 1991; Thorne 1994; Earman 1995; Earman, Smeenk, & Wüthrich 2009; and Dowe 2007.)

How about the issue of constraints in the time travel region $T$? Prima facie , constraints in such a region would not appear to be surprising. But one might still expect that there should be no constraints on states on a spacelike surface, provided one keeps the surface “small enough”. In the physics literature the following question has been asked: for any point $p$ in $T$, and any space-like surface $S$ that includes $p$ is there a neighborhood $E$ of $p$ in $S$ such that any solution on $E$ can be extended to a solution on the whole space-time? With respect to this question, there are some simple models in which one has this kind of extendability of local solutions to global ones, and some simple models in which one does not have such extendability, with no clear general pattern. The technical mathematical problems are amplified by the more conceptual problem of what it might mean to say that one could create a situation which forces the creation of closed timelike curves. (See, e.g., Yurtsever 1990; Friedman, Morris, et al. 1990; Novikov 1992; Earman 1995; and Earman, Smeenk, & Wüthrich 2009). What are we to think of all of this?

The toy models above all treat billiard balls, fields, and other objects propagating through a background spacetime with CTCs. Even if we can show that a consistent solution exists, there is a further question: what kind of matter and dynamics could generate CTCs to begin with? There are various solutions of Einstein’s equations with CTCs, but how do these exotic spacetimes relate to the models actually used in describing the world? In other words, what positive reasons might we have to take CTCs seriously as a feature of the actual universe, rather than an exotic possibility of primarily mathematical interest?

We should distinguish two different kinds of “possibility” that we might have in mind in posing such questions (following Stein 1970). First, we can consider a solution as a candidate cosmological model, describing the (large-scale gravitational degrees of freedom of the) entire universe. The case for ruling out spacetimes with CTCs as potential cosmological models strikes us as, surprisingly, fairly weak. Physicists used to simply rule out solutions with CTCs as unreasonable by fiat, due to the threat of paradoxes, which we have dismantled above. But it is also challenging to make an observational case. Observations tell us very little about global features, such as the existence of CTCs, because signals can only reach an observer from a limited region of spacetime, called the past light cone. Our past light cone—and indeed the collection of all the past light cones for possible observers in a given spacetime—can be embedded in spacetimes with quite different global features (Malament 1977, Manchak 2009). This undercuts the possibility of using observations to constrain global topology, including (among other things) ruling out the existence of CTCs.

Yet the case in favor of taking cosmological models with CTCs seriously is also not particularly strong. Some solutions used to describe black holes, which are clearly relevant in a variety of astrophysical contexts, include CTCs. But the question of whether the CTCs themselves play an essential representational role is subtle: the CTCs arise in the maximal extensions of these solutions, and can plausibly be regarded as extraneous to successful applications. Furthermore, many of the known solutions with CTCs have symmetries, raising the possibility that CTCs are not a stable or robust feature. Slight departures from symmetry may lead to a solution without CTCs, suggesting that the CTCs may be an artifact of an idealized model.

The second sense of possibility regards whether “reasonable” initial conditions can be shown to lead to, or not to lead to, the formation of CTCs. As with the toy models above, suppose that we have a partial Cauchy surface $S$, such that all the temporal funny business lies to the future. Rather than simply assuming that there is a region with CTCs to the future, we can ask instead whether it is possible to create CTCs by manipulating matter in the initial, well-behaved region—that is, whether it is possible to build a time machine. Several physicists have pursued “chronology protection theorems” aiming to show that the dynamics of general relativity (or some other aspects of physics) rules this out, and to clarify why this is the case. The proof of such a theorem would justify neglecting solutions with CTCs as a source of insight into the nature of time in the actual world. But as of yet there are several partial results that do not fully settle the question. One further intriguing possibility is that even if general relativity by itself does protect chronology, it may not be possible to formulate a sensible theory describing matter and fields in solutions with CTCs. (See SEP entry on Time Machines; Smeenk and Wüthrich 2011 for more.)

There is a different question regarding the limitations of these toy models. The toy models and related examples show that there are consistent solutions for simple systems in the presence of CTCs. As usual we have made the analysis tractable by building toy models, selecting only a few dynamical degrees of freedom and tracking their evolution. But there is a large gap between the systems we have described and the time travel stories they evoke, with Kurt traveling along a CTC with murderous intentions. In particular, many features of the manifest image of time are tied to the thermodynamical properties of macroscopic systems. Rovelli (unpublished) considers a extremely simple system to illustrate the problem: can a clock move along a CTC? A clock consists of something in periodic motion, such as a pendulum bob, and something that counts the oscillations, such as an escapement mechanism. The escapement mechanism cannot work without friction; this requires dissipation and increasing entropy. For a clock that counts oscillations as it moves along a time-like trajectory, the entropy must be a monotonically increasing function. But that is obviously incompatible with the clock returning to precisely the same state at some future time as it completes a loop. The point generalizes, obviously, to imply that anything like a human, with memory and agency, cannot move along a CTC.

Since it is not obvious that one can rid oneself of all constraints in realistic models, let us examine the argument that time travel is implausible, and we should think it unlikely to exist in our world, in so far as it implies such constraints. The argument goes something like the following. In order to satisfy such constraints one needs some pre-established divine harmony between the global (time travel) structure of space-time and the distribution of particles and fields on space-like surfaces in it. But it is not plausible that the actual world, or any world even remotely like ours, is constructed with divine harmony as part of the plan. In fact, one might argue, we have empirical evidence that conditions in any spatial region can vary quite arbitrarily. So we have evidence that such constraints, whatever they are, do not in fact exist in our world. So we have evidence that there are no closed time-like lines in our world or one remotely like it. We will now examine this argument in more detail by presenting four possible responses, with counterresponses, to this argument.

Response 1. There is nothing implausible or new about such constraints. For instance, if the universe is spatially closed, there has to be enough matter to produce the needed curvature, and this puts constraints on the matter distribution on a space-like hypersurface. Thus global space-time structure can quite unproblematically constrain matter distributions on space-like hypersurfaces in it. Moreover we have no realistic idea what these constraints look like, so we hardly can be said to have evidence that they do not obtain.

Counterresponse 1. Of course there are constraining relations between the global structure of space-time and the matter in it. The Einstein equations relate curvature of the manifold to the matter distribution in it. But what is so strange and implausible about the constraints imposed by the existence of closed time-like curves is that these constraints in essence have nothing to do with the Einstein equations. When investigating such constraints one typically treats the particles and/or field in question as test particles and/or fields in a given space-time, i.e., they are assumed not to affect the metric of space-time in any way. In typical space-times without closed time-like curves this means that one has, in essence, complete freedom of matter distribution on a space-like hypersurface. (See response 2 for some more discussion of this issue). The constraints imposed by the possibility of time travel have a quite different origin and are implausible. In the ordinary case there is a causal interaction between matter and space-time that results in relations between global structure of space-time and the matter distribution in it. In the time travel case there is no such causal story to be told: there simply has to be some pre-established harmony between the global space-time structure and the matter distribution on some space-like surfaces. This is implausible.

Response 2. Constraints upon matter distributions are nothing new. For instance, Maxwell’s equations constrain electric fields $\boldsymbol{E}$ on an initial surface to be related to the (simultaneous) charge density distribution $\varrho$ by the equation $\varrho = \text{div}(\boldsymbol{E})$. (If we assume that the $E$ field is generated solely by the charge distribution, this conditions amounts to requiring that the $E$ field at any point in space simply be the one generated by the charge distribution according to Coulomb’s inverse square law of electrostatics.) This is not implausible divine harmony. Such constraints can hold as a matter of physical law. Moreover, if we had inferred from the apparent free variation of conditions on spatial regions that there could be no such constraints we would have mistakenly inferred that $\varrho = \text{div}(\boldsymbol{E})$ could not be a law of nature.

Counterresponse 2. The constraints imposed by the existence of closed time-like lines are of quite a different character from the constraint imposed by $\varrho = \text{div}(\boldsymbol{E})$. The constraints imposed by $\varrho = \text{div}(\boldsymbol{E})$ on the state on a space-like hypersurface are:

local constraints (i.e., to check whether the constraint holds in a region you just need to see whether it holds at each point in the region),
quite independent of the global space-time structure,
quite independent of how the space-like surface in question is embedded in a given space-time, and
very simply and generally stateable.

On the other hand, the consistency constraints imposed by the existence of closed time-like curves (i) are not local, (ii) are dependent on the global structure of space-time, (iii) depend on the location of the space-like surface in question in a given space-time, and (iv) appear not to be simply stateable other than as the demand that the state on that space-like surface embedded in such and such a way in a given space-time, do not lead to inconsistency. On some views of laws (e.g., David Lewis’ view) this plausibly implies that such constraints, even if they hold, could not possibly be laws. But even if one does not accept such a view of laws, one could claim that the bizarre features of such constraints imply that it is implausible that such constraints hold in our world or in any world remotely like ours.

Response 3. It would be strange if there are constraints in the non-time travel region. It is not strange if there are constraints in the time travel region. They should be explained in terms of the strange, self-interactive, character of time travel regions. In this region there are time-like trajectories from points to themselves. Thus the state at such a point, in such a region, will, in a sense, interact with itself. It is a well-known fact that systems that interact with themselves will develop into an equilibrium state, if there is such an equilibrium state, or else will develop towards some singularity. Normally, of course, self-interaction isn’t true instantaneous self-interaction, but consists of a feed-back mechanism that takes time. But in time travel regions something like true instantaneous self-interaction occurs. This explains why constraints on states occur in such time travel regions: the states “ ab initio ” have to be “equilibrium states”. Indeed in a way this also provides some picture of why indeterminism occurs in time travel regions: at the onset of self-interaction states can fork into different equi-possible equilibrium states.

Counterresponse 3. This is explanation by woolly analogy. It all goes to show that time travel leads to such bizarre consequences that it is unlikely that it occurs in a world remotely like ours.

Response 4. All of the previous discussion completely misses the point. So far we have been taking the space-time structure as given, and asked the question whether a given time travel space-time structure imposes constraints on states on (parts of) space-like surfaces. However, space-time and matter interact. Suppose that one is in a space-time with closed time-like lines, such that certain counterfactual distributions of matter on some neighborhood of a point $p$ are ruled out if one holds that space-time structure fixed. One might then ask

Why does the actual state near $p$ in fact satisfy these constraints? By what divine luck or plan is this local state compatible with the global space-time structure? What if conditions near $p$ had been slightly different?

And one might take it that the lack of normal answers to these questions indicates that it is very implausible that our world, or any remotely like it, is such a time travel universe. However the proper response to these question is the following. There are no constraints in any significant sense. If they hold they hold as a matter of accidental fact, not of law. There is no more explanation of them possible than there is of any contingent fact. Had conditions in a neighborhood of $p$ been otherwise, the global structure of space-time would have been different. So what? The only question relevant to the issue of constraints is whether an arbitrary state on an arbitrary spatial surface $S$ can always be embedded into a space-time such that that state on $S$ consistently extends to a solution on the entire space-time.

But we know the answer to that question. A well-known theorem in general relativity says the following: any initial data set on a three dimensional manifold $S$ with positive definite metric has a unique embedding into a maximal space-time in which $S$ is a Cauchy surface (see, e.g., Geroch & Horowitz 1979: 284 for more detail), i.e., there is a unique largest space-time which has $S$ as a Cauchy surface and contains a consistent evolution of the initial value data on $S$. Now since $S$ is a Cauchy surface this space-time does not have closed time like curves. But it may have extensions (in which $S$ is not a Cauchy surface) which include closed timelike curves, indeed it may be that any maximal extension of it would include closed timelike curves. (This appears to be the case for extensions of states on certain surfaces of Taub-NUT space-times. See Earman, Smeenk, & Wüthrich 2009). But these extensions, of course, will be consistent. So properly speaking, there are no constraints on states on space-like surfaces. Nonetheless the space-time in which these are embedded may or may not include closed time-like curves.

Counterresponse 4. This, in essence, is the stonewalling answer which we indicated in section 1. However, whether or not you call the constraints imposed by a given space-time on distributions of matter on certain space-like surfaces “genuine constraints”, whether or not they can be considered lawlike, and whether or not they need to be explained, the existence of such constraints can still be used to argue that time travel worlds are so bizarre that it is implausible that our world or any world remotely like ours is a time travel world.

Suppose that one is in a time travel world. Suppose that given the global space-time structure of this world, there are constraints imposed upon, say, the state of motion of a ball on some space-like surface when it is treated as a test particle, i.e., when it is assumed that the ball does not affect the metric properties of the space-time it is in. (There is lots of other matter that, via the Einstein equation, corresponds exactly to the curvature that there is everywhere in this time travel worlds.) Now a real ball of course does have some effect on the metric of the space-time it is in. But let us consider a ball that is so small that its effect on the metric is negligible. Presumably it will still be the case that certain states of this ball on that space-like surface are not compatible with the global time travel structure of this universe.

This means that the actual distribution of matter on such a space-like surface can be extended into a space-time with closed time-like lines, but that certain counterfactual distributions of matter on this space-like surface can not be extended into the same space-time. But note that the changes made in the matter distribution (when going from the actual to the counterfactual distribution) do not in any non-negligible way affect the metric properties of the space-time. (Recall that the changes only effect test particles.) Thus the reason why the global time travel properties of the counterfactual space-time have to be significantly different from the actual space-time is not that there are problems with metric singularities or alterations in the metric that force significant global changes when we go to the counterfactual matter distribution. The reason that the counterfactual space-time has to be different is that in the counterfactual world the ball’s initial state of motion starting on the space-like surface, could not “meet up” in a consistent way with its earlier self (could not be consistently extended) if we were to let the global structure of the counterfactual space-time be the same as that of the actual space-time. Now, it is not bizarre or implausible that there is a counterfactual dependence of manifold structure, even of its topology, on matter distributions on spacelike surfaces. For instance, certain matter distributions may lead to singularities, others may not. We may indeed in some sense have causal power over the topology of the space-time we live in. But this power normally comes via the Einstein equations. But it is bizarre to think that there could be a counterfactual dependence of global space-time structure on the arrangement of certain tiny bits of matter on some space-like surface, where changes in that arrangement by assumption do not affect the metric anywhere in space-time in any significant way . It is implausible that we live in such a world, or that a world even remotely like ours is like that.

Let us illustrate this argument in a different way by assuming that wormhole time travel imposes constraints upon the states of people prior to such time travel, where the people have so little mass/energy that they have negligible effect, via the Einstein equation, on the local metric properties of space-time. Do you think it more plausible that we live in a world where wormhole time travel occurs but it only occurs when people’s states are such that these local states happen to combine with time travel in such a way that nobody ever succeeds in killing their younger self, or do you think it more plausible that we are not in a wormhole time travel world? [ 5 ]

An alternative approach to time travel (initiated by Deutsch 1991) abstracts away from the idealized toy models described above. [ 6 ] This computational approach considers instead the evolution of bits (simple physical systems with two discrete states) through a network of interactions, which can be represented by a circuit diagram with gates corresponding to the interactions. Motivated by the possibility of CTCs, Deutsch proposed adding a new kind of channel that connects the output of a given gate back to its input —in essence, a backwards-time step. More concretely, given a gate that takes $n$ bits as input, we can imagine taking some number $i \lt n$ of these bits through a channel that loops back and then do double-duty as inputs. Consistency requires that the state of these $i$ bits is the same for output and input. (We will consider an illustration of this kind of system in the next section.) Working through examples of circuit diagrams with a CTC channel leads to similar treatments of Consistency and Underdetermination as the discussion above (see, e.g., Wallace 2012: § 10.6). But the approach offers two new insights (both originally due to Deutsch): the Easy Knowledge paradox, and a particularly clear extension to time travel in quantum mechanics.

A computer equipped with a CTC channel can exploit the need to find consistent evolution to solve remarkably hard problems. (This is quite different than the first idea that comes to mind to enhance computational power: namely to just devote more time to a computation, and then send the result back on the CTC to an earlier state.) The gate in a circuit incorporating a CTC implements a function from the input bits to the output bits, under the constraint that the output and input match the i bits going through the CTC channel. This requires, in effect, finding the fixed point of the relevant function. Given the generality of the model, there are few limits on the functions that could be implemented on the CTC circuit. Nature has to solve a hard computational problem just to ensure consistent evolution. This can then be extended to other complex computational problems—leading, more precisely, to solutions of NP -complete problems in polynomial time (see Aaronson 2013: Chapter 20 for an overview and further references). The limits imposed by computational complexity are an essential part of our epistemic situation, and computers with CTCs would radically change this.

We now turn to the application of the computational approach to the quantum physics of time travel (see Deutsch 1991; Deutsch & Lockwood 1994). By contrast with the earlier discussions of constraints in classical systems, they claim to show that time travel never imposes any constraints on the pre-time travel state of quantum systems. The essence of this account is as follows. [ 7 ]

A quantum system starts in state $S_1$, interacts with its older self, after the interaction is in state $S_2$, time travels while developing into state $S_3$, then interacts with its younger self, and ends in state $S_4$ (see figure 10 ).

Figure 10 [An extended description of figure 10 is in the supplement.]

Deutsch assumes that the set of possible states of this system are the mixed states, i.e., are represented by the density matrices over the Hilbert space of that system. Deutsch then shows that for any initial state $S_1$, any unitary interaction between the older and younger self, and any unitary development during time travel, there is a consistent solution, i.e., there is at least one pair of states $S_2$ and $S_3$ such that when $S_1$ interacts with $S_3$ it will change to state $S_2$ and $S_2$ will then develop into $S_3$. The states $S_2, S_3$ and $S_4$ will typically be not be pure states, i.e., will be non-trivial mixed states, even if $S_1$ is pure. In order to understand how this leads to interpretational problems let us give an example. Consider a system that has a two dimensional Hilbert space with as a basis the states $\vc{+}$ and $\vc{-}$. Let us suppose that when state $\vc{+}$ of the young system encounters state $\vc{+}$ of the older system, they interact and the young system develops into state $\vc{-}$ and the old system remains in state $\vc{+}$. In obvious notation:

Similarly, suppose that:

Let us furthermore assume that there is no development of the state of the system during time travel, i.e., that $\vc{+}_2$ develops into $\vc{+}_3$, and that $\vc{-}_2$ develops into $\vc{-}_3$.

Now, if the only possible states of the system were $\vc{+}$ and $\vc{-}$ (i.e., if there were no superpositions or mixtures of these states), then there is a constraint on initial states: initial state $\vc{+}_1$ is impossible. For if $\vc{+}_1$ interacts with $\vc{+}_3$ then it will develop into $\vc{-}_2$, which, during time travel, will develop into $\vc{-}_3$, which inconsistent with the assumed state $\vc{+}_3$. Similarly if $\vc{+}_1$ interacts with $\vc{-}_3$ it will develop into $\vc{+}_2$, which will then develop into $\vc{+}_3$ which is also inconsistent. Thus the system can not start in state $\vc{+}_1$.

But, says Deutsch, in quantum mechanics such a system can also be in any mixture of the states $\vc{+}$ and $\vc{-}$. Suppose that the older system, prior to the interaction, is in a state $S_3$ which is an equal mixture of 50% $\vc{+}_3$ and 50% $\vc{-}_3$. Then the younger system during the interaction will develop into a mixture of 50% $\vc{+}_2$ and 50% $\vc{-}_2$, which will then develop into a mixture of 50% $\vc{+}_3$ and 50% $\vc{-}_3$, which is consistent! More generally Deutsch uses a fixed point theorem to show that no matter what the unitary development during interaction is, and no matter what the unitary development during time travel is, for any state $S_1$ there is always a state $S_3$ (which typically is not a pure state) which causes $S_1$ to develop into a state $S_2$ which develops into that state $S_3$. Thus quantum mechanics comes to the rescue: it shows in all generality that no constraints on initial states are needed!

One might wonder why Deutsch appeals to mixed states: will superpositions of states $\vc{+}$ and $\vc{-}$ not suffice? Unfortunately such an idea does not work. Suppose again that the initial state is $\vc{+}_1$. One might suggest that that if state $S_3$ is

one will obtain a consistent development. For one might think that when initial state $\vc{+}_1$ encounters the superposition

it will develop into superposition

and that this in turn will develop into

as desired. However this is not correct. For initial state $\vc{+}_1$ when it encounters

will develop into the entangled state

In so far as one can speak of the state of the young system after this interaction, it is in the mixture of 50% $\vc{+}_2$ and 50% $\vc{-}_2$, not in the superposition

So Deutsch does need his recourse to mixed states.

This clarification of why Deutsch needs his mixtures does however indicate a serious worry about the simplifications that are part of Deutsch’s account. After the interaction the old and young system will (typically) be in an entangled state. Although for purposes of a measurement on one of the two systems one can say that this system is in a mixed state, one can not represent the full state of the two systems by specifying the mixed state of each separate part, as there are correlations between observables of the two systems that are not represented by these two mixed states, but are represented in the joint entangled state. But if there really is an entangled state of the old and young systems directly after the interaction, how is one to represent the subsequent development of this entangled state? Will the state of the younger system remain entangled with the state of the older system as the younger system time travels and the older system moves on into the future? On what space-like surfaces are we to imagine this total entangled state to be? At this point it becomes clear that there is no obvious and simple way to extend elementary non-relativistic quantum mechanics to space-times with closed time-like curves: we apparently need to characterize not just the entanglement between two systems, but entanglement relative to specific spacetime descriptions.

How does Deutsch avoid these complications? Deutsch assumes a mixed state $S_3$ of the older system prior to the interaction with the younger system. He lets it interact with an arbitrary pure state $S_1$ younger system. After this interaction there is an entangled state $S'$ of the two systems. Deutsch computes the mixed state $S_2$ of the younger system which is implied by this entangled state $S'$. His demand for consistency then is just that this mixed state $S_2$ develops into the mixed state $S_3$. Now it is not at all clear that this is a legitimate way to simplify the problem of time travel in quantum mechanics. But even if we grant him this simplification there is a problem: how are we to understand these mixtures?

If we take an ignorance interpretation of mixtures we run into trouble. For suppose that we assume that in each individual case each older system is either in state $\vc{+}_3$ or in state $\vc{-}_3$ prior to the interaction. Then we regain our paradox. Deutsch instead recommends the following, many worlds, picture of mixtures. Suppose we start with state $\vc{+}_1$ in all worlds. In some of the many worlds the older system will be in the $\vc{+}_3$ state, let us call them A -worlds, and in some worlds, B -worlds, it will be in the $\vc{-}_3$ state. Thus in A -worlds after interaction we will have state $\vc{-}_2$ , and in B -worlds we will have state $\vc{+}_2$. During time travel the $\vc{-}_2$ state will remain the same, i.e., turn into state $\vc{-}_3$, but the systems in question will travel from A -worlds to B -worlds. Similarly the $\vc{+}$ $_2$ states will travel from the B -worlds to the A -worlds, thus preserving consistency.

Now whatever one thinks of the merits of many worlds interpretations, and of this understanding of it applied to mixtures, in the end one does not obtain genuine time travel in Deutsch’s account. The systems in question travel from one time in one world to another time in another world, but no system travels to an earlier time in the same world. (This is so at least in the normal sense of the word “world”, the sense that one means when, for instance, one says “there was, and will be, only one Elvis Presley in this world.”) Thus, even if it were a reasonable view, it is not quite as interesting as it may have initially seemed. (See Wallace 2012 for a more sympathetic treatment, that explores several further implications of accepting time travel in conjunction with the many worlds interpretation.)

We close by acknowledging that Deutsch’s starting point—the claim that this computational model captures the essential features of quantum systems in a spacetime with CTCs—has been the subject of some debate. Several physicists have pursued a quite different treatment of evolution of quantum systems through CTC’s, based on considering the “post-selected” state (see Lloyd et al. 2011). Their motivations for implementing the consistency condition in terms of the post-selected state reflects a different stance towards quantum foundations. A different line of argument aims to determine whether Deutsch’s treatment holds as an appropriate limiting case of a more rigorous treatment, such as quantum field theory in curved spacetimes. For example, Verch (2020) establishes several results challenging the assumption that Deutsch’s treatment is tied to the presence of CTC’s, or that it is compatible with the entanglement structure of quantum fields.

What remains of the grandfather paradox in general relativistic time travel worlds is the fact that in some cases the states on edgeless spacelike surfaces are “overconstrained”, so that one has less than the usual freedom in specifying conditions on such a surface, given the time-travel structure, and in some cases such states are “underconstrained”, so that states on edgeless space-like surfaces do not determine what happens elsewhere in the way that they usually do, given the time travel structure. There can also be mixtures of those two types of cases. The extent to which states are overconstrained and/or underconstrained in realistic models is as yet unclear, though it would be very surprising if neither obtained. The extant literature has primarily focused on the problem of overconstraint, since that, often, either is regarded as a metaphysical obstacle to the possibility time travel, or as an epistemological obstacle to the plausibility of time travel in our world. While it is true that our world would be quite different from the way we normally think it is if states were overconstrained, underconstraint seems at least as bizarre as overconstraint. Nonetheless, neither directly rules out the possibility of time travel.

If time travel entailed contradictions then the issue would be settled. And indeed, most of the stories employing time travel in popular culture are logically incoherent: one cannot “change” the past to be different from what it was, since the past (like the present and the future) only occurs once. But if the only requirement demanded is logical coherence, then it seems all too easy. A clever author can devise a coherent time-travel scenario in which everything happens just once and in a consistent way. This is just too cheap: logical coherence is a very weak condition, and many things we take to be metaphysically impossible are logically coherent. For example, it involves no logical contradiction to suppose that water is not molecular, but if both chemistry and Kripke are right it is a metaphysical impossibility. We have been interested not in logical possibility but in physical possibility. But even so, our conditions have been relatively weak: we have asked only whether time-travel is consistent with the universal validity of certain fundamental physical laws and with the notion that the physical state on a surface prior to the time travel region be unconstrained. It is perfectly possible that the physical laws obey this condition, but still that time travel is not metaphysically possible because of the nature of time itself. Consider an analogy. Aristotle believed that water is homoiomerous and infinitely divisible: any bit of water could be subdivided, in principle, into smaller bits of water. Aristotle’s view contains no logical contradiction. It was certainly consistent with Aristotle’s conception of water that it be homoiomerous, so this was, for him, a conceptual possibility. But if chemistry is right, Aristotle was wrong both about what water is like and what is possible for it. It can’t be infinitely divided, even though no logical or conceptual analysis would reveal that.

Similarly, even if all of our consistency conditions can be met, it does not follow that time travel is physically possible, only that some specific physical considerations cannot rule it out. The only serious proof of the possibility of time travel would be a demonstration of its actuality. For if we agree that there is no actual time travel in our universe, the supposition that there might have been involves postulating a substantial difference from actuality, a difference unlike in kind from anything we could know if firsthand. It is unclear to us exactly what the content of possible would be if one were to either maintain or deny the possibility of time travel in these circumstances, unless one merely meant that the possibility is not ruled out by some delineated set of constraints. As the example of Aristotle’s theory of water shows, conceptual and logical “possibility” do not entail possibility in a full-blooded sense. What exactly such a full-blooded sense would be in case of time travel, and whether one could have reason to believe it to obtain, remain to us obscure.

Aaronson, Scott, 2013, Quantum Computing since Democritus , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511979309
Arntzenius, Frank, 2006, “Time Travel: Double Your Fun”, Philosophy Compass , 1(6): 599–616. doi:10.1111/j.1747-9991.2006.00045.x
Clarke, C.J.S., 1977, “Time in General Relativity” in Foundations of Space-Time Theory , Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science , Vol VIII, Earman, J., Glymour, C., and Stachel, J. (eds), pp. 94–108. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Deutsch, David, 1991, “Quantum Mechanics near Closed Timelike Lines”, Physical Review D , 44(10): 3197–3217. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.44.3197
Deutsch, David and Michael Lockwood, 1994, “The Quantum Physics of Time Travel”, Scientific American , 270(3): 68–74. doi:10.1038/scientificamerican0394-68
Dowe, Phil, 2007, “Constraints on Data in Worlds with Closed Timelike Curves”, Philosophy of Science , 74(5): 724–735. doi:10.1086/525617
Earman, John, 1972, “Implications of Causal Propagation Outside the Null Cone”, Australasian Journal of Philosophy , 50(3): 222–237. doi:10.1080/00048407212341281
Earman, John, 1995, Bangs, Crunches, Whimpers, and Shrieks: Singularities and Acausalities in Relativistic Spacetimes , New York: Oxford University Press.
Earman, John, Christopher Smeenk, and Christian Wüthrich, 2009, “Do the Laws of Physics Forbid the Operation of Time Machines?”, Synthese , 169(1): 91–124. doi:10.1007/s11229-008-9338-2
Echeverria, Fernando, Gunnar Klinkhammer, and Kip S. Thorne, 1991, “Billiard Balls in Wormhole Spacetimes with Closed Timelike Curves: Classical Theory”, Physical Review D , 44(4): 1077–1099. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.44.1077
Effingham, Nikk, 2020, Time Travel: Probability and Impossibility , Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/oso/9780198842507.001.0001
Fletcher, Samuel C., 2020, “The Principle of Stability”, Philosopher’s Imprint , 20: article 3. [ Fletcher 2020 available online ]
Friedman, John and Michael Morris, 1991, “The Cauchy Problem for the Scalar Wave Equation Is Well Defined on a Class of Spacetimes with Closed Timelike Curves”, Physical Review Letters , 66(4): 401–404. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.66.401
Friedman, John, Michael S. Morris, Igor D. Novikov, Fernando Echeverria, Gunnar Klinkhammer, Kip S. Thorne, and Ulvi Yurtsever, 1990, “Cauchy Problem in Spacetimes with Closed Timelike Curves”, Physical Review D , 42(6): 1915–1930. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.42.1915
Geroch, Robert and Gary Horowitz, 1979, “Global Structures of Spacetimes”, in General Relativity: An Einstein Centenary Survey , Stephen Hawking and W. Israel (eds.), Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press, Chapter 5, pp. 212–293.
Gödel, Kurt, 1949, “A Remark About the Relationship Between Relativity Theory and Idealistic Philosophy”, in Albert Einstein, Philosopher-Scientist , Paul Arthur Schilpp (ed.), Evanston, IL: Library of Living Philosophers, 557–562.
Hocking, John G. and Gail S. Young, 1961, Topology , (Addison-Wesley Series in Mathematics), Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Horwich, Paul, 1987, “Time Travel”, in his Asymmetries in Time: Problems in the Philosophy of Science , , Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 111–128.
Kutach, Douglas N., 2003, “Time Travel and Consistency Constraints”, Philosophy of Science , 70(5): 1098–1113. doi:10.1086/377392
Lewis, David, 1976, “The Paradoxes of Time Travel”, American Philosophical Quarterly , 13(2): 145–152.
Lloyd, Seth, Lorenzo Maccone, Raul Garcia-Patron, Vittorio Giovannetti, and Yutaka Shikano, 2011, “Quantum Mechanics of Time Travel through Post-Selected Teleportation”, Physical Review D , 84(2): 025007. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.84.025007
Malament, David B., 1977, “Observationally Indistinguishable Spacetimes: Comments on Glymour’s Paper”, in Foundations of Space-Time Theories , John Earman, Clark N. Glymour, and John J. Stachel (eds.), (Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science 8), Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press, 61–80.
–––, 1984, “‘Time Travel’ in the Gödel Universe”, PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association , 1984(2): 91–100. doi:10.1086/psaprocbienmeetp.1984.2.192497
–––, 1985, “Minimal Acceleration Requirements for ‘Time Travel’, in Gödel Space‐time”, Journal of Mathematical Physics , 26(4): 774–777. doi:10.1063/1.526566
Manchak, John Byron, 2009, “Can We Know the Global Structure of Spacetime?”, Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B: Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics , 40(1): 53–56. doi:10.1016/j.shpsb.2008.07.004
–––, 2011, “On Efficient ‘Time Travel’ in Gödel Spacetime”, General Relativity and Gravitation , 43(1): 51–60. doi:10.1007/s10714-010-1068-3
Maudlin, Tim, 1990, “Time-Travel and Topology”, PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association , 1990(1): 303–315. doi:10.1086/psaprocbienmeetp.1990.1.192712
Novikov, I. D., 1992, “Time Machine and Self-Consistent Evolution in Problems with Self-Interaction”, Physical Review D , 45(6): 1989–1994. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.45.1989
Smeenk, Chris and Christian Wüthrich, 2011, “Time Travel and Time Machines”, in the Oxford Handbook on Time , Craig Callender (ed.), Oxford: Oxford University Press, 577–630..
Stein, Howard, 1970, “On the Paradoxical Time-Structures of Gödel”, Philosophy of Science , 37(4): 589–601. doi:10.1086/288328
Thorne, Kip S., 1994, Black Holes and Time Warps: Einstein’s Outrageous Legacy , (Commonwealth Fund Book Program), New York: W.W. Norton.
Verch, Rainer, 2020, “The D-CTC Condition in Quantum Field Theory”, in Progress and Visions in Quantum Theory in View of Gravity , Felix Finster, Domenico Giulini, Johannes Kleiner, and Jürgen Tolksdorf (eds.), Cham: Springer International Publishing, 221–232. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-38941-3_9
Wallace, David, 2012, The Emergent Multiverse: Quantum Theory According to the Everett Interpretation , Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199546961.001.0001
Wasserman, Ryan, 2018, Paradoxes of Time Travel , Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/oso/9780198793335.001.0001
Weyl, Hermann, 1918/1920 [1922/1952], Raum, Zeit, Materie , Berlin: Springer; fourth edition 1920. Translated as Space—Time—Matter , Henry Leopold Brose (trans.), New York: Dutton, 1922. Reprinted 1952, New York: Dover Publications.
Wheeler, John Archibald and Richard Phillips Feynman, 1949, “Classical Electrodynamics in Terms of Direct Interparticle Action”, Reviews of Modern Physics , 21(3): 425–433. doi:10.1103/RevModPhys.21.425
Yurtsever, Ulvi, 1990, “Test Fields on Compact Space‐times”, Journal of Mathematical Physics , 31(12): 3064–3078. doi:10.1063/1.528960

How to cite this entry . Preview the PDF version of this entry at the Friends of the SEP Society . Look up topics and thinkers related to this entry at the Internet Philosophy Ontology Project (InPhO). Enhanced bibliography for this entry at PhilPapers , with links to its database.

Adlam, Emily, unpublished, “ Is There Causation in Fundamental Physics? New Insights from Process Matrices and Quantum Causal Modelling ”, 2022, arXiv: 2208.02721. doi:10.48550/ARXIV.2208.02721
Rovelli, Carlo, unpublished, “ Can We Travel to the Past? Irreversible Physics along Closed Timelike Curves ”, arXiv: 1912.04702. doi:10.48550/ARXIV.1912.04702

Accessibility

Support SEP

Mirror sites.

View this site from another server:

Info about mirror sites

Library of Congress Catalog Data: ISSN 1095-5054

Subject List
Take a Tour
For Authors
Subscriber Services
Publications
African American Studies
African Studies
American Literature
Anthropology
Architecture Planning and Preservation
Art History
Atlantic History
Biblical Studies
British and Irish Literature
Childhood Studies
Chinese Studies
Cinema and Media Studies
Communication
Criminology
Environmental Science
Evolutionary Biology
International Law
International Relations
Islamic Studies
Jewish Studies
Latin American Studies
Latino Studies
Linguistics
Literary and Critical Theory
Medieval Studies
Military History
Political Science
Public Health
Renaissance and Reformation
Social Work
Urban Studies
Victorian Literature
Browse All Subjects

How to Subscribe

Free Trials

In This Article Expand or collapse the "in this article" section Time Travel

Introduction, general overviews.

David Lewis’s Analysis, Its Forerunners and Critics
Gödel and the Ideality of Time
Models and Issues from Relativity
Models and Issues from Quantum Theory
Causal Loops and Probability
Time Travel in Many Worlds and the Autonomy Principle
Travel in Dynamic Time and Multi-Dimensional Time
General Metaphysical Issues

Other Subject Areas

Forthcoming articles expand or collapse the "forthcoming articles" section.

Alfred North Whitehead
Feminist Aesthetics
Find more forthcoming articles...
Export Citations
Share This Facebook LinkedIn Twitter

Time Travel by Alasdair Richmond LAST REVIEWED: 26 October 2015 LAST MODIFIED: 26 October 2015 DOI: 10.1093/obo/9780195396577-0295

Time travel is a philosophical growth industry, with many issues in metaphysics and elsewhere recently transformed by consideration of time travel possibilities. The debate has gradually shifted from focusing on time travel’s logical possibility (which possibility is now generally although not universally granted) to sundry topics including persistence, causation, personal identity, freedom, composition, and natural laws, to name but a few. Besides metaphysical discussions, some time travel works draw on the philosophies of science, spacetime, and computation. Some interesting forerunners notwithstanding, serious physical interest in time travel begins with Gödel’s 1949a demonstration that general relativity permits space-times that are riddled with closed timelike curves (“CTCs” henceforth). A key philosophical text on time travel is Lewis 1976 and its argument for the logical possibility of certain backward time travel journeys and even for the possibility of casual loops. Lewis concludes that time travel could occur in a possible world, albeit perhaps a strange world that would feature (or seem to feature) strange restrictions on actions. In Lewis’s analysis, a traveler can arrive in the past of the same history they come from provided that the traveler’s actions on arrival are consistent with the history that they come from. So other worlds or multiple temporal dimensions are not necessary to make time travel consistent. Granted, the physics, persistence conditions, agency, and epistemology of agents in such worlds might look weird indeed. Since Lewis, philosophical time travel questions include the following: given that a traveler into the past cannot create any paradoxical outcomes on arrival, what then would stay their hand? Are the constraints on a traveler’s actions admissible within our ordinary understanding of physical law or human agency? Is time travel compatible with dynamic time or even with the existence of time itself? Can backward time travel be physically possible within a single history? If a time traveler meets another stage of him- or herself, is the traveler in two places at once, and what theory of persistence can cope with this puzzling multiplication? Can time-travel spacetimes resolve otherwise intractable computational problems?

Despite several hundred philosophical and scientific articles, book chapters, and Internet resources devoted to philosophical problems posed by time travel, there is currently no full-length monograph or anthology on the subject. The best introduction to the topic in general so far is chapter 8 of Dainton (second edition 2010), Dainton 2010 being the best general philosophical resource available on time and space. The key work is Lewis 1976 , a defense of the logical possibility of backward time travel, from which a large number of subsequent treatments take their cue. A useful overview, albeit largely from a physical science perspective, is Nahin 1999 . Also largely physical in emphasis but comprehensive and thorough is Earman 1995 . Richmond 2003 surveys philosophical work on time travel to date. Arntzenius 2006 details the problems of free action and nomological constraint posed by backward time travel. Arntzenius and Maudlin 2005 is helpful on (especially) problems of physical law. Carroll 2008 is perhaps the best single online resource available on any aspect of time travel. Le Poidevin 2003 is a highly commendable introduction to the philosophy of time in general but especially good on problems of time travel. Bourne 2006 offers some useful arguments and clarifications centered on Gödel’s arguments about time travel and the relations between time travel and the status of times themselves. Earman and Wüthrich 2006 offers scientifically well informed but approachable and philosophically cogent discussions of what physics might, and might not, allow by way of time travel.

Arntzenius, Frank. “Time Travel: Double Your Fun.” Philosophy Compass 6 (2006): 599–616.

DOI: 10.1111/j.1747-9991.2006.00045.x

Entertaining survey of the philosophical terrain around time travel that concentrates particularly on the constraints on action likely to be suffered by travelers in the past. An excellent introduction to the nomological contrivance problem and more. Available online for purchase or by subscription.

Arntzenius, Frank, and Tim Maudlin. “ Time Travel and Modern Physics .” In Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy . Edited by Edward N. Zalta. 2005.

Notably acute survey of physical possibilities for time travel, including detailed arguments that backward time travel threatens to create correlations that conflict with standard quantum predictions.

Bourne, C. A Future for Presentism . Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006.

DOI: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199212804.001.0001

Although primarily devoted to defending presentism, chapter 8 offers one of the best treatments of Gödel’s ideality argument around and pp. 132–134 offer some interesting sidelights on the possible compatability of time travel and presentism.

Carroll, John W. A Time Travel Website . 2008–.

Extremely thorough, engagingly-written, well-designed, and continually evolving online resource that offers helpful discussions, well-chosen readings, and helpful animations to boot.

Dainton, Barry. Time and Space . 2d ed. Durham, NC: Acumen, 2010.

Revised and expanded edition of Dainton’s classic 2001 introduction to the philosophy of space and time. Can be highly recommended but notable here for its extensive, essential treatments of time travel, relativity, and Gödel’s “ideality” argument.

Earman, John. “Recent Work on Time Travel.” In Time’s Arrows Today . Edited by Steven F. Savitt, 268–310. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1995.

DOI: 10.1017/CBO9780511622861

Thorough discussion of the then-current state of play in the philosophical and physical literature on time travel. This is still a valuable resource.

Earman, John, and Christian Wüthrich. “ Time Machines .” In Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy . Edited by Edward N. Zalta. 2006.

Comprehensive discussion of physical resources for time travel, among other intriguing suggestions, develops the view that physically realistic time machines might be uncontrollable even if they become a possiblility.

Le Poidevin, Robin. Travels in Four Dimensions: The Enigmas of Space and Time . Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003.

Engaging and clearly written introduction to the philosophy of space and time. Often offers problems and discussions that lend themselves to time travel interpretation. An excellent introductory and pedagogical resource.

Lewis, David. “ The Paradoxes of Time Travel .” American Philosophical Quarterly 13 (1976): 145–152.

The philosophical time travel work. Includes Lewis’s discrepancy definition of time travel: the most useful by far. Invokes the notion of compossibility to disambiguate “Grandfather paradox” arguments and argues that backward time travel and causal loops can occur in (nonbranching) possible worlds. Usefully distinguishes between replacement change and counterfactual change. (This is often cited and sometimes rebutted but never refuted.)

Nahin, Paul. Time Machines: Time Travel in Physics, Metaphysics and Science Fiction . 1st ed. New York: American Institute of Physics, 1999.

DOI: 10.1007/978-1-4757-3088-3

Engaging and comprehensive attempt at surveying all the scientific, philosophical, and fictional literature on time travel. Perhaps slightly more at ease with physics and fiction than with philosophy, but this is a detailed and thorough treatment.

Richmond, Alasdair. “Recent Work: Time Travel.” Philosophical Books 44 (2003): 297–309.

DOI: 10.1111/1468-0149.00308

Survey of the time travel debate from Lewis 1976 onward, sketching links with debates in persistence, philosophy of spacetime and temporal topology. Available online by subscription.

Users without a subscription are not able to see the full content on this page. Please subscribe or login .

Oxford Bibliographies Online is available by subscription and perpetual access to institutions. For more information or to contact an Oxford Sales Representative click here .

About Philosophy »
Meet the Editorial Board »
A Priori Knowledge
Abduction and Explanatory Reasoning
Abstract Objects
Addams, Jane
Adorno, Theodor
Aesthetic Hedonism
Aesthetics, Analytic Approaches to
Aesthetics, Continental
Aesthetics, Environmental
Aesthetics, History of
African Philosophy, Contemporary
Alexander, Samuel
Analytic/Synthetic Distinction
Anarchism, Philosophical
Animal Rights
Anscombe, G. E. M.
Anthropic Principle, The
Anti-Natalism
Applied Ethics
Aquinas, Thomas
Argument Mapping
Art and Emotion
Art and Knowledge
Art and Morality
Astell, Mary
Aurelius, Marcus
Austin, J. L.
Bacon, Francis
Bayesianism
Bergson, Henri
Berkeley, George
Biology, Philosophy of
Bolzano, Bernard
Boredom, Philosophy of
British Idealism
Buber, Martin
Buddhist Philosophy
Burge, Tyler
Business Ethics
Camus, Albert
Canterbury, Anselm of
Carnap, Rudolf
Cavendish, Margaret
Chemistry, Philosophy of
Childhood, Philosophy of
Chinese Philosophy
Cognitive Ability
Cognitive Phenomenology
Cognitive Science, Philosophy of
Coherentism
Communitarianism
Computational Science
Computer Science, Philosophy of
Computer Simulations
Comte, Auguste
Conceptual Role Semantics
Conditionals
Confirmation
Connectionism
Consciousness
Constructive Empiricism
Contemporary Hylomorphism
Contextualism
Contrastivism
Cook Wilson, John
Cosmology, Philosophy of
Critical Theory
Culture and Cognition
Daoism and Philosophy
Davidson, Donald
de Beauvoir, Simone
de Montaigne, Michel
Decision Theory
Deleuze, Gilles
Derrida, Jacques
Descartes, René
Descartes, René: Sensory Representations
Descriptions
Dewey, John
Dialetheism
Disagreement, Epistemology of
Disjunctivism
Dispositions
Divine Command Theory
Doing and Allowing
du Châtelet, Emilie
Dummett, Michael
Dutch Book Arguments
Early Modern Philosophy, 1600-1750
Eastern Orthodox Philosophical Thought
Education, Philosophy of
Engineering, Philosophy and Ethics of
Environmental Philosophy
Epistemic Basing Relation
Epistemic Defeat
Epistemic Injustice
Epistemic Justification
Epistemic Philosophy of Logic
Epistemology
Epistemology and Active Externalism
Epistemology, Bayesian
Epistemology, Feminist
Epistemology, Internalism and Externalism in
Epistemology, Moral
Epistemology of Education
Ethical Consequentialism
Ethical Deontology
Ethical Intuitionism
Eugenics and Philosophy
Events, The Philosophy of
Evidence-Based Medicine, Philosophy of
Evidential Support Relation In Epistemology, The
Evolutionary Debunking Arguments in Ethics
Evolutionary Epistemology
Experimental Philosophy
Explanations of Religion
Extended Mind Thesis, The
Externalism and Internalism in the Philosophy of Mind
Faith, Conceptions of
Feminist Philosophy
Feyerabend, Paul
Fichte, Johann Gottlieb
Fictionalism
Fictionalism in the Philosophy of Mathematics
Film, Philosophy of
Foot, Philippa
Forgiveness
Formal Epistemology
Foucault, Michel
Frege, Gottlob
Gadamer, Hans-Georg
Geometry, Epistemology of
God and Possible Worlds
God, Arguments for the Existence of
God, The Existence and Attributes of
Grice, Paul
Habermas, Jürgen
Hart, H. L. A.
Heaven and Hell
Hegel, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich: Aesthetics
Hegel, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich: Metaphysics
Hegel, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich: Philosophy of History
Hegel, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich: Philosophy of Politics
Heidegger, Martin: Early Works
Hermeneutics
Higher Education, Philosophy of
History, Philosophy of
Hobbes, Thomas
Horkheimer, Max
Human Rights
Hume, David: Aesthetics
Hume, David: Moral and Political Philosophy
Husserl, Edmund
Idealizations in Science
Identity in Physics
Imagination
Imagination and Belief
Immanuel Kant: Political and Legal Philosophy
Impossible Worlds
Incommensurability in Science
Indian Philosophy
Indispensability of Mathematics
Inductive Reasoning
Instruments in Science
Intellectual Humility
Intentionality, Collective
James, William
Japanese Philosophy
Kant and the Laws of Nature
Kant, Immanuel: Aesthetics and Teleology
Kant, Immanuel: Ethics
Kant, Immanuel: Theoretical Philosophy
Kierkegaard, Søren
Knowledge-first Epistemology
Knowledge-How
Kristeva, Julia
Kuhn, Thomas S.
Lacan, Jacques
Lakatos, Imre
Langer, Susanne
Language of Thought
Language, Philosophy of
Latin American Philosophy
Legal Epistemology
Legal Philosophy
Legal Positivism
Leibniz, Gottfried Wilhelm
Levinas, Emmanuel
Lewis, C. I.
Literature, Philosophy of
Locke, John
Locke, John: Identity, Persons, and Personal Identity
Lottery and Preface Paradoxes, The
Machiavelli, Niccolò
Martin Heidegger: Later Works
Martin Heidegger: Middle Works
Material Constitution
Mathematical Explanation
Mathematical Pluralism
Mathematical Structuralism
Mathematics, Ontology of
Mathematics, Philosophy of
Mathematics, Visual Thinking in
McDowell, John
McTaggart, John
Meaning of Life, The
Mechanisms in Science
Medically Assisted Dying
Medicine, Contemporary Philosophy of
Medieval Logic
Medieval Philosophy
Mental Causation
Merleau-Ponty, Maurice
Meta-epistemological Skepticism
Metaepistemology
Metametaphysics
Metaphilosophy
Metaphysical Grounding
Metaphysics, Contemporary
Metaphysics, Feminist
Midgley, Mary
Mill, John Stuart
Mind, Metaphysics of
Modal Epistemology
Models and Theories in Science
Montesquieu
Moore, G. E.
Moral Contractualism
Moral Naturalism and Nonnaturalism
Moral Responsibility
Multiculturalism
Murdoch, Iris
Music, Analytic Philosophy of
Nationalism
Natural Kinds
Naturalism in the Philosophy of Mathematics
Naïve Realism
Neo-Confucianism
Neuroscience, Philosophy of
Nietzsche, Friedrich
Nonexistent Objects
Normative Ethics
Normative Foundations, Philosophy of Law:
Normativity and Social Explanation
Objectivity
Occasionalism
Ontological Dependence
Ontology of Art
Ordinary Objects
Other Minds
Panpsychism
Particularism in Ethics
Pascal, Blaise
Paternalism
Peirce, Charles Sanders
Perception, Cognition, Action
Perception, The Problem of
Perfectionism
Personal Identity
Phenomenal Concepts
Phenomenal Conservatism
Phenomenology
Philosophy for Children
Photography, Analytic Philosophy of
Physicalism
Physicalism and Metaphysical Naturalism
Physics, Experiments in
Political Epistemology
Political Obligation
Political Philosophy
Popper, Karl
Pornography and Objectification, Analytic Approaches to
Practical Knowledge
Practical Moral Skepticism
Practical Reason
Probabilistic Representations of Belief
Probability, Interpretations of
Problem of Divine Hiddenness, The
Problem of Evil, The
Propositions
Psychology, Philosophy of
Quine, W. V. O.
Racist Jokes
Rationalism
Rationality
Rawls, John: Moral and Political Philosophy
Realism and Anti-Realism
Realization
Reasons in Epistemology
Reductionism in Biology
Reference, Theory of
Reid, Thomas
Reliabilism
Religion, Philosophy of
Religious Belief, Epistemology of
Religious Experience
Religious Pluralism
Ricoeur, Paul
Risk, Philosophy of
Rorty, Richard
Rousseau, Jean-Jacques
Rule-Following
Russell, Bertrand
Ryle, Gilbert
Sartre, Jean-Paul
Schopenhauer, Arthur
Science and Religion
Science, Theoretical Virtues in
Scientific Explanation
Scientific Progress
Scientific Realism
Scientific Representation
Scientific Revolutions
Scotus, Duns
Self-Knowledge
Sellars, Wilfrid
Semantic Externalism
Semantic Minimalism
Senses, The
Sensitivity Principle in Epistemology
Shepherd, Mary
Singular Thought
Situated Cognition
Situationism and Virtue Theory
Skepticism, Contemporary
Skepticism, History of
Slurs, Pejoratives, and Hate Speech
Smith, Adam: Moral and Political Philosophy
Social Aspects of Scientific Knowledge
Social Epistemology
Social Identity
Sounds and Auditory Perception
Speech Acts
Spinoza, Baruch
Stebbing, Susan
Strawson, P. F.
Structural Realism
Supererogation
Supervenience
Tarski, Alfred
Technology, Philosophy of
Testimony, Epistemology of
Theoretical Terms in Science
Thomas Aquinas' Philosophy of Religion
Thought Experiments
Time Travel
Transcendental Arguments
Truth and the Aim of Belief
Truthmaking
Turing Test
Two-Dimensional Semantics
Understanding
Uniqueness and Permissiveness in Epistemology
Utilitarianism
Value of Knowledge
Vienna Circle
Virtue Epistemology
Virtue Ethics
Virtues, Epistemic
Virtues, Intellectual
Voluntarism, Doxastic
Weakness of Will
Weil, Simone
William of Ockham
Williams, Bernard
Wittgenstein, Ludwig: Early Works
Wittgenstein, Ludwig: Later Works
Wittgenstein, Ludwig: Middle Works
Wollstonecraft, Mary
Privacy Policy
Cookie Policy
Legal Notice
Accessibility

[66.249.64.20|81.177.182.159]
81.177.182.159

A pair of hands hold a disintegrating white round clock

Can we time travel? A theoretical physicist provides some answers

Emeritus professor, Physics, Carleton University

Disclosure statement

Peter Watson received funding from NSERC. He is affiliated with Carleton University and a member of the Canadian Association of Physicists.

Carleton University provides funding as a member of The Conversation CA.

Carleton University provides funding as a member of The Conversation CA-FR.

View all partners

Bahasa Indonesia

Time travel makes regular appearances in popular culture, with innumerable time travel storylines in movies, television and literature. But it is a surprisingly old idea: one can argue that the Greek tragedy Oedipus Rex , written by Sophocles over 2,500 years ago, is the first time travel story .

But is time travel in fact possible? Given the popularity of the concept, this is a legitimate question. As a theoretical physicist, I find that there are several possible answers to this question, not all of which are contradictory.

The simplest answer is that time travel cannot be possible because if it was, we would already be doing it. One can argue that it is forbidden by the laws of physics, like the second law of thermodynamics or relativity . There are also technical challenges: it might be possible but would involve vast amounts of energy.

There is also the matter of time-travel paradoxes; we can — hypothetically — resolve these if free will is an illusion, if many worlds exist or if the past can only be witnessed but not experienced. Perhaps time travel is impossible simply because time must flow in a linear manner and we have no control over it, or perhaps time is an illusion and time travel is irrelevant.

a woman stands among a crowd of people moving around her

Laws of physics

Since Albert Einstein’s theory of relativity — which describes the nature of time, space and gravity — is our most profound theory of time, we would like to think that time travel is forbidden by relativity. Unfortunately, one of his colleagues from the Institute for Advanced Study, Kurt Gödel, invented a universe in which time travel was not just possible, but the past and future were inextricably tangled.

We can actually design time machines , but most of these (in principle) successful proposals require negative energy , or negative mass, which does not seem to exist in our universe. If you drop a tennis ball of negative mass, it will fall upwards. This argument is rather unsatisfactory, since it explains why we cannot time travel in practice only by involving another idea — that of negative energy or mass — that we do not really understand.

Mathematical physicist Frank Tipler conceptualized a time machine that does not involve negative mass, but requires more energy than exists in the universe .

Time travel also violates the second law of thermodynamics , which states that entropy or randomness must always increase. Time can only move in one direction — in other words, you cannot unscramble an egg. More specifically, by travelling into the past we are going from now (a high entropy state) into the past, which must have lower entropy.

This argument originated with the English cosmologist Arthur Eddington , and is at best incomplete. Perhaps it stops you travelling into the past, but it says nothing about time travel into the future. In practice, it is just as hard for me to travel to next Thursday as it is to travel to last Thursday.

Resolving paradoxes

There is no doubt that if we could time travel freely, we run into the paradoxes. The best known is the “ grandfather paradox ”: one could hypothetically use a time machine to travel to the past and murder their grandfather before their father’s conception, thereby eliminating the possibility of their own birth. Logically, you cannot both exist and not exist.

Read more: Time travel could be possible, but only with parallel timelines

Kurt Vonnegut’s anti-war novel Slaughterhouse-Five , published in 1969, describes how to evade the grandfather paradox. If free will simply does not exist, it is not possible to kill one’s grandfather in the past, since he was not killed in the past. The novel’s protagonist, Billy Pilgrim, can only travel to other points on his world line (the timeline he exists in), but not to any other point in space-time, so he could not even contemplate killing his grandfather.

The universe in Slaughterhouse-Five is consistent with everything we know. The second law of thermodynamics works perfectly well within it and there is no conflict with relativity. But it is inconsistent with some things we believe in, like free will — you can observe the past, like watching a movie, but you cannot interfere with the actions of people in it.

Could we allow for actual modifications of the past, so that we could go back and murder our grandfather — or Hitler ? There are several multiverse theories that suppose that there are many timelines for different universes. This is also an old idea: in Charles Dickens’ A Christmas Carol , Ebeneezer Scrooge experiences two alternative timelines, one of which leads to a shameful death and the other to happiness.

Time is a river

Roman emperor Marcus Aurelius wrote that:

“ Time is like a river made up of the events which happen , and a violent stream; for as soon as a thing has been seen, it is carried away, and another comes in its place, and this will be carried away too.”

We can imagine that time does flow past every point in the universe, like a river around a rock. But it is difficult to make the idea precise. A flow is a rate of change — the flow of a river is the amount of water that passes a specific length in a given time. Hence if time is a flow, it is at the rate of one second per second, which is not a very useful insight.

Theoretical physicist Stephen Hawking suggested that a “ chronology protection conjecture ” must exist, an as-yet-unknown physical principle that forbids time travel. Hawking’s concept originates from the idea that we cannot know what goes on inside a black hole, because we cannot get information out of it. But this argument is redundant: we cannot time travel because we cannot time travel!

Researchers are investigating a more fundamental theory, where time and space “emerge” from something else. This is referred to as quantum gravity , but unfortunately it does not exist yet.

So is time travel possible? Probably not, but we don’t know for sure!

Time travel
Stephen Hawking
Albert Einstein
Listen to this article
Time travel paradox
Arthur Eddington

Head of School, School of Arts & Social Sciences, Monash University Malaysia

Chief Operating Officer (COO)

Clinical Teaching Fellow

Data Manager

Director, Social Policy

A beginner's guide to time travel

Learn exactly how Einstein's theory of relativity works, and discover how there's nothing in science that says time travel is impossible.

Actor Rod Taylor tests his time machine in a still from the film 'The Time Machine', directed by George Pal, 1960.

Everyone can travel in time . You do it whether you want to or not, at a steady rate of one second per second. You may think there's no similarity to traveling in one of the three spatial dimensions at, say, one foot per second. But according to Einstein 's theory of relativity , we live in a four-dimensional continuum — space-time — in which space and time are interchangeable.

Einstein found that the faster you move through space, the slower you move through time — you age more slowly, in other words. One of the key ideas in relativity is that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light — about 186,000 miles per second (300,000 kilometers per second), or one light-year per year). But you can get very close to it. If a spaceship were to fly at 99% of the speed of light, you'd see it travel a light-year of distance in just over a year of time.

That's obvious enough, but now comes the weird part. For astronauts onboard that spaceship, the journey would take a mere seven weeks. It's a consequence of relativity called time dilation , and in effect, it means the astronauts have jumped about 10 months into the future.

Traveling at high speed isn't the only way to produce time dilation. Einstein showed that gravitational fields produce a similar effect — even the relatively weak field here on the surface of Earth . We don't notice it, because we spend all our lives here, but more than 12,400 miles (20,000 kilometers) higher up gravity is measurably weaker— and time passes more quickly, by about 45 microseconds per day. That's more significant than you might think, because it's the altitude at which GPS satellites orbit Earth, and their clocks need to be precisely synchronized with ground-based ones for the system to work properly.

The satellites have to compensate for time dilation effects due both to their higher altitude and their faster speed. So whenever you use the GPS feature on your smartphone or your car's satnav, there's a tiny element of time travel involved. You and the satellites are traveling into the future at very slightly different rates.

But for more dramatic effects, we need to look at much stronger gravitational fields, such as those around black holes , which can distort space-time so much that it folds back on itself. The result is a so-called wormhole, a concept that's familiar from sci-fi movies, but actually originates in Einstein's theory of relativity. In effect, a wormhole is a shortcut from one point in space-time to another. You enter one black hole, and emerge from another one somewhere else. Unfortunately, it's not as practical a means of transport as Hollywood makes it look. That's because the black hole's gravity would tear you to pieces as you approached it, but it really is possible in theory. And because we're talking about space-time, not just space, the wormhole's exit could be at an earlier time than its entrance; that means you would end up in the past rather than the future.

Trajectories in space-time that loop back into the past are given the technical name "closed timelike curves." If you search through serious academic journals, you'll find plenty of references to them — far more than you'll find to "time travel." But in effect, that's exactly what closed timelike curves are all about — time travel

This article is brought to you by How It Works .

How It Works is the action-packed magazine that's bursting with exciting information about the latest advances in science and technology, featuring everything you need to know about how the world around you — and the universe — works.

There's another way to produce a closed timelike curve that doesn't involve anything quite so exotic as a black hole or wormhole: You just need a simple rotating cylinder made of super-dense material. This so-called Tipler cylinder is the closest that real-world physics can get to an actual, genuine time machine. But it will likely never be built in the real world, so like a wormhole, it's more of an academic curiosity than a viable engineering design.

Yet as far-fetched as these things are in practical terms, there's no fundamental scientific reason — that we currently know of — that says they are impossible. That's a thought-provoking situation, because as the physicist Michio Kaku is fond of saying, "Everything not forbidden is compulsory" (borrowed from T.H. White's novel, "The Once And Future King"). He doesn't mean time travel has to happen everywhere all the time, but Kaku is suggesting that the universe is so vast it ought to happen somewhere at least occasionally. Maybe some super-advanced civilization in another galaxy knows how to build a working time machine, or perhaps closed timelike curves can even occur naturally under certain rare conditions.

An artist's impression of a pair of neutron stars - a Tipler cylinder requires at least ten.

This raises problems of a different kind — not in science or engineering, but in basic logic. If time travel is allowed by the laws of physics, then it's possible to envision a whole range of paradoxical scenarios . Some of these appear so illogical that it's difficult to imagine that they could ever occur. But if they can't, what's stopping them?

Thoughts like these prompted Stephen Hawking , who was always skeptical about the idea of time travel into the past, to come up with his "chronology protection conjecture" — the notion that some as-yet-unknown law of physics prevents closed timelike curves from happening. But that conjecture is only an educated guess, and until it is supported by hard evidence, we can come to only one conclusion: Time travel is possible.

A party for time travelers

Hawking was skeptical about the feasibility of time travel into the past, not because he had disproved it, but because he was bothered by the logical paradoxes it created. In his chronology protection conjecture, he surmised that physicists would eventually discover a flaw in the theory of closed timelike curves that made them impossible.

In 2009, he came up with an amusing way to test this conjecture. Hawking held a champagne party (shown in his Discovery Channel program), but he only advertised it after it had happened. His reasoning was that, if time machines eventually become practical, someone in the future might read about the party and travel back to attend it. But no one did — Hawking sat through the whole evening on his own. This doesn't prove time travel is impossible, but it does suggest that it never becomes a commonplace occurrence here on Earth.

The arrow of time

One of the distinctive things about time is that it has a direction — from past to future. A cup of hot coffee left at room temperature always cools down; it never heats up. Your cellphone loses battery charge when you use it; it never gains charge. These are examples of entropy , essentially a measure of the amount of "useless" as opposed to "useful" energy. The entropy of a closed system always increases, and it's the key factor determining the arrow of time.

It turns out that entropy is the only thing that makes a distinction between past and future. In other branches of physics, like relativity or quantum theory, time doesn't have a preferred direction. No one knows where time's arrow comes from. It may be that it only applies to large, complex systems, in which case subatomic particles may not experience the arrow of time.

Time travel paradox

If it's possible to travel back into the past — even theoretically — it raises a number of brain-twisting paradoxes — such as the grandfather paradox — that even scientists and philosophers find extremely perplexing.

Killing Hitler

A time traveler might decide to go back and kill him in his infancy. If they succeeded, future history books wouldn't even mention Hitler — so what motivation would the time traveler have for going back in time and killing him?

Killing your grandfather

Instead of killing a young Hitler, you might, by accident, kill one of your own ancestors when they were very young. But then you would never be born, so you couldn't travel back in time to kill them, so you would be born after all, and so on …

A closed loop

Suppose the plans for a time machine suddenly appear from thin air on your desk. You spend a few days building it, then use it to send the plans back to your earlier self. But where did those plans originate? Nowhere — they are just looping round and round in time.

Sign up for the Live Science daily newsletter now

Get the world’s most fascinating discoveries delivered straight to your inbox.

Andrew May holds a Ph.D. in astrophysics from Manchester University, U.K. For 30 years, he worked in the academic, government and private sectors, before becoming a science writer where he has written for Fortean Times, How It Works, All About Space, BBC Science Focus, among others. He has also written a selection of books including Cosmic Impact and Astrobiology: The Search for Life Elsewhere in the Universe, published by Icon Books.

2 new helium leaks discovered on Boeing's Starliner — forcing NASA astronauts to skip sleep to fix them

A telescope on Earth just took an unbelievable photo of Jupiter's moon

Arctic 'zombie fires' rising from the dead could unleash vicious cycle of warming

time travel

hypothetical transport through time into the past or the future.

Discover More

Example sentences.

Whatever variant they meet will likely be very interested in time travel through the Quantum Realm, as the title Quantumania suggests.

It feels like every day, we get one step closer to figuring out the science behind time travel.

Considering that Loki will involve lots of time travel, it’s probable that we’ll get a glimpse of the multiverse in this show.

Then we would better understand space and time and perhaps finally decide if time travel is a realistic possibility, and if so, how to achieve it.

Physicists are far from agreeing over whether time travel of this sort is possible.

Underneath its comic-book action and time-travel shenanigans, X-Men: Days of Future Past questions the use of military robots.

The title of his forthcoming book is Rush Revere and the Brave Pilgrims: Time Travel Adventures with Exceptional Americans.

But somehow in the long run, truth and time travel the same road.

As soon as I entered West 100th Street, I understood that this experience was going to involve time travel.

Nine years ago he dazzled audiences with his $7,000 time-travel flick ‘Primer.’

His story is plausible, logical, once you grant the basic premise that time travel is an actuality.

It seems absurd that parts of the same train can at any time travel in opposite directions, but such is the case.

During this journey we recovered something of the conditions of old-time travel.

Even for younger Destinyworkers, time travel at best was an exhausting business.

We may dimly perceive something of the trials and hardships of old-time travel in that expression harbouring.

Is Time Travel Possible?

Cosmology & Astrophysics
Physics Laws, Concepts, and Principles
Quantum Physics
Important Physicists
Thermodynamics
Weather & Climate

M.S., Mathematics Education, Indiana University
B.A., Physics, Wabash College

Stories regarding travel into the past and the future have long captured our imagination, but the question of whether time travel is possible is a thorny one that gets right to the heart of understanding what physicists mean when they use the word "time."

Modern physics teaches us that time is one of the most mysterious aspects of our universe, though it may at first seem straightforward. Einstein revolutionized our understanding of the concept, but even with this revised understanding, some scientists still ponder the question of whether or not time actually exists or whether it is a mere "stubbornly persistent illusion" (as Einstein once called it). Whatever time is, though, physicists (and fiction writers) have found some interesting ways to manipulate it to consider traversing it in unorthodox ways.

Time and Relativity

Though referenced in H.G. Wells' The Time Machine (1895), the actual science of time travel didn't come into being until well into the twentieth century, as a side-effect of Albert Einstein 's theory of general relativity (developed in 1915). Relativity describes the physical fabric of the universe in terms of a 4-dimensional spacetime, which includes three spatial dimensions (up/down, left/right, and front/back) along with one time dimension. Under this theory, which has been proven by numerous experiments over the last century, gravity is a result of the bending of this spacetime in response to the presence of matter. In other words, given a certain configuration of matter, the actual spacetime fabric of the universe can be altered in significant ways.

One of the amazing consequences of relativity is that movement can result in a difference in the way time passes, a process known as time dilation . This is most dramatically manifested in the classic Twin Paradox . In this method of "time travel," you can move into the future faster than normal, but there's not really any way back. (There's a slight exception, but more on that later in the article.)

Early Time Travel

In 1937, Scottish physicist W. J. van Stockum first applied general relativity in a way that opened the door for time travel. By applying the equation of general relativity to a situation with an infinitely long, extremely dense rotating cylinder (kind of like an endless barbershop pole). The rotation of such a massive object actually creates a phenomenon known as "frame dragging," which is that it actually drags spacetime along with it. Van Stockum found that in this situation, you could create a path in 4-dimensional spacetime which began and ended at the same point - something called a closed timelike curve - which is the physical result that allows time travel. You can set off in a space ship and travel a path which brings you back to the exact same moment you started out at.

Though an intriguing result, this was a fairly contrived situation, so there wasn't really much concern about it taking place. A new interpretation was about to come along, however, which was much more controversial.

In 1949, the mathematician Kurt Godel - a friend of Einstein's and a colleague at Princeton University's Institute for Advanced Study - decided to tackle a situation where the whole universe is rotating. In Godel's solutions, time travel was actually allowed by the equations if the universe were rotating. A rotating universe could itself function as a time machine.

Now, if the universe were rotating, there would be ways to detect it (light beams would bend, for example, if the whole universe were rotating), and so far the evidence is overwhelmingly strong that there is no sort of universal rotation. So again, time travel is ruled out by this particular set of results. But the fact is that things in the universe do rotate, and that again opens up the possibility.

Time Travel and Black Holes

In 1963, New Zealand mathematician Roy Kerr used the field equations to analyze a rotating black hole , called a Kerr black hole, and found that the results allowed a path through a wormhole in the black hole, missing the singularity at the center, and make it out the other end. This scenario also allows for closed timelike curves, as theoretical physicist Kip Thorne realized years later.

In the early 1980s, while Carl Sagan worked on his 1985 novel Contact , he approached Kip Thorne with a question about the physics of time travel, which inspired Thorne to examine the concept of using a black hole as a means of time travel. Together with the physicist Sung-Won Kim, Thorne realized that you could (in theory) have a black hole with a wormhole connecting it to another point in space held open by some form of negative energy.

But just because you have a wormhole doesn't mean that you have a time machine. Now, let's assume that you could move one end of the wormhole (the "movable end). You place the movable end on a spaceship, shooting it off into space at nearly the speed of light . Time dilation kicks in, and the time experienced by the movable end is much less than the time experienced by the fixed end. Let's assume that you move the movable end 5,000 years into the future of the Earth, but the movable end only "ages" 5 years. So you leave in 2010 AD, say, and arrive in 7010 AD.

However, if you travel through the movable end, you will actually pop out of the fixed end in 2015 AD (since 5 years have passed back on Earth). What? How does this work?

Well, the fact is that the two ends of the wormhole are connected. No matter how far apart they are, in spacetime, they're still basically "near" each other. Since the movable end is only five years older than when it left, going through it will send you back to the related point on the fixed wormhole. And if someone from 2015 AD Earth steps through the fixed wormhole, they'd come out in 7010 AD from the movable wormhole. (If someone stepped through the wormhole in 2012 AD, they'd end up on the spaceship somewhere in the middle of the trip and so on.)

Though this is the most physically reasonable description of a time machine, there are still problems. No one knows if wormholes or negative energy exist, nor how to put them together in this way if they do exist. But it is (in theory) possible.

Closed Timelike Curve
Can We Travel Through Time to the Past?
Wormholes: What Are They and Can We Use Them?
What Is the Twin Paradox? Real Time Travel
Einstein's Theory of Relativity
Time Travel: Dream or Possible Reality?
What Is Time? A Simple Explanation
The Science of Star Trek
Understanding Time Dilation Effects in Physics
Is Warp Drive From 'Star Trek' Possible?
Understanding Cosmology and Its Impact
An Introduction to Black Holes
Cosmos Episode 4 Viewing Worksheet
The History of Gravity
Black Holes and Hawking Radiation
Spiral Galaxies

Cambridge Dictionary +Plus

Meaning of time travel in English

Your browser doesn't support HTML5 audio

around Robin Hood's barn idiom
communication
public transport
super-commuting
transoceanic
well travelled

Examples of time travel

Translations of time travel.

Get a quick, free translation!

Word of the Day

an animal that produces eggs and uses the heat of the sun to keep its blood warm

Worse than or worst of all? How to use the words ‘worse’ and ‘worst’

Learn more with +Plus

Recent and Recommended {{#preferredDictionaries}} {{name}} {{/preferredDictionaries}}
Definitions Clear explanations of natural written and spoken English English Learner’s Dictionary Essential British English Essential American English
Grammar and thesaurus Usage explanations of natural written and spoken English Grammar Thesaurus
Pronunciation British and American pronunciations with audio English Pronunciation
English–Chinese (Simplified) Chinese (Simplified)–English
English–Chinese (Traditional) Chinese (Traditional)–English
English–Dutch Dutch–English
English–French French–English
English–German German–English
English–Indonesian Indonesian–English
English–Italian Italian–English
English–Japanese Japanese–English
English–Norwegian Norwegian–English
English–Polish Polish–English
English–Portuguese Portuguese–English
English–Spanish Spanish–English
English–Swedish Swedish–English
Dictionary +Plus Word Lists
English Noun
Translations
All translations

To add time travel to a word list please sign up or log in.

Add time travel to one of your lists below, or create a new one.

Something went wrong.

There was a problem sending your report.

Skip to main content
Keyboard shortcuts for audio player

LISTEN & FOLLOW
Apple Podcasts
Google Podcasts
Amazon Music
Amazon Alexa

Your support helps make our show possible and unlocks access to our sponsor-free feed.

Paradox-Free Time Travel Is Theoretically Possible, Researchers Say

Matthew S. Schwartz

A dog dressed as Marty McFly from Back to the Future attends the Tompkins Square Halloween Dog Parade in 2015. New research says time travel might be possible without the problems McFly encountered. Timothy A. Clary/AFP via Getty Images hide caption

A dog dressed as Marty McFly from Back to the Future attends the Tompkins Square Halloween Dog Parade in 2015. New research says time travel might be possible without the problems McFly encountered.

"The past is obdurate," Stephen King wrote in his book about a man who goes back in time to prevent the Kennedy assassination. "It doesn't want to be changed."

Turns out, King might have been on to something.

Countless science fiction tales have explored the paradox of what would happen if you went back in time and did something in the past that endangered the future. Perhaps one of the most famous pop culture examples is in Back to the Future , when Marty McFly goes back in time and accidentally stops his parents from meeting, putting his own existence in jeopardy.

But maybe McFly wasn't in much danger after all. According a new paper from researchers at the University of Queensland, even if time travel were possible, the paradox couldn't actually exist.

Researchers ran the numbers and determined that even if you made a change in the past, the timeline would essentially self-correct, ensuring that whatever happened to send you back in time would still happen.

"Say you traveled in time in an attempt to stop COVID-19's patient zero from being exposed to the virus," University of Queensland scientist Fabio Costa told the university's news service .

"However, if you stopped that individual from becoming infected, that would eliminate the motivation for you to go back and stop the pandemic in the first place," said Costa, who co-authored the paper with honors undergraduate student Germain Tobar.

"This is a paradox — an inconsistency that often leads people to think that time travel cannot occur in our universe."

A variation is known as the "grandfather paradox" — in which a time traveler kills their own grandfather, in the process preventing the time traveler's birth.

The logical paradox has given researchers a headache, in part because according to Einstein's theory of general relativity, "closed timelike curves" are possible, theoretically allowing an observer to travel back in time and interact with their past self — potentially endangering their own existence.

But these researchers say that such a paradox wouldn't necessarily exist, because events would adjust themselves.

Take the coronavirus patient zero example. "You might try and stop patient zero from becoming infected, but in doing so, you would catch the virus and become patient zero, or someone else would," Tobar told the university's news service.

In other words, a time traveler could make changes, but the original outcome would still find a way to happen — maybe not the same way it happened in the first timeline but close enough so that the time traveler would still exist and would still be motivated to go back in time.

"No matter what you did, the salient events would just recalibrate around you," Tobar said.

The paper, "Reversible dynamics with closed time-like curves and freedom of choice," was published last week in the peer-reviewed journal Classical and Quantum Gravity . The findings seem consistent with another time travel study published this summer in the peer-reviewed journal Physical Review Letters. That study found that changes made in the past won't drastically alter the future.

Bestselling science fiction author Blake Crouch, who has written extensively about time travel, said the new study seems to support what certain time travel tropes have posited all along.

"The universe is deterministic and attempts to alter Past Event X are destined to be the forces which bring Past Event X into being," Crouch told NPR via email. "So the future can affect the past. Or maybe time is just an illusion. But I guess it's cool that the math checks out."

time travel
grandfather paradox

We have completed maintenance on Astronomy.com and action may be required on your account. Learn More

Login/Register
Solar System
Exotic Objects
Upcoming Events
Deep-Sky Objects
Observing Basics
Telescopes and Equipment
Astrophotography
Space Exploration
Human Spaceflight
Robotic Spaceflight
The Magazine

A brief history of time: What is it and how do we define it?

Time and astronomy are inseparable. Humans have been using the motions of the stars, Sun, and Moon for thousands of years to regulate their hunting, crops, religion, and lives in every way. And as astronomy developed, so did the need for more precise timekeeping.

There are many ways to ask, “What is the time?” Astronomers can use solar standard time, mean solar time, sidereal time, Universal Time, or Julian Date and its many modified forms. Astronomers describe three different types of twilight, the equation of time, 24 time zones, and an astronomical day. Understanding these different “times” gives us a better idea of our relationship with the sky above, and the spinning Earth on which we live.

The beginning of time

Early civilizations developed two types of calendars. The oldest is lunar in nature. It might seem more logical for the Sun to have been the first timekeeper, but archaeologists have found bones of mammoths and other animals dating over 20,000 years old that appear to have carvings recording phases of the Moon. During that period of human history, hunters tracking game needed to know how long they had been gone from their camp, making the Moon the obvious choice to track the passage of time.

It would be millennia before the Sun replaced the Moon in our modern calendar. This is because Earth and the Moon are involved in a cosmic mashup that is difficult to untangle. Most ancient cultures heralded the beginning of the month when the thin crescent or “New Moon” could be seen after sunset. There are 354 and a fraction days in a lunar year with 12 lunar months. Earth, however, revolves around the Sun every 365.242 days. While this was not a problem in a purely ceremonial or religious calendar, trying to mesh these two calendars was impossible.

The solution to this issue was proposed by Sosigenes of Alexandria, Cleopatra’s court astronomer and arguably the most influential astronomer in all of history. Julius Caesar employed Sosigenes to fix the old Roman lunar calendar. By Caesar’s time, the lunar calendar had become so out of sync with the seasons that it required a decree from the emperor to remedy the situation. At Sosigenes’ suggestion, the old lunar calendar was replaced with one which used only the Sun to delineate the year. The Moon was left to drift through the 12 months of Caesar’s new calendar.

This Julian calendar also implemented leap years, adding one extra day every four years. But this was not quite a perfect fix, as the last fraction of a day in a year is slightly less than one-quarter of a day. By the 16th century, the Julian calendar was also out of step with the seasons. This led Pope Gregory XIII to implement updates in 1582 that dictated leap years be skipped on years divisible by 100 except when divisible by 400. So while 1900 was not a leap year, 2000 was. Two thousand years later, the whole world still uses the modified calendar of Sosigenes.

Keeping time

Cultures the world over developed methods for tracking the hours using water clocks, hourglasses, and sundials, often for the purpose of scheduling religious rituals. Of course, there were limitations to these methods. Water froze in the winter, hourglasses needed to be turned over, and sundials were of no use after sunset.

Around the year a.d. 1000, mechanical devices that could ring bells to tell time began to appear in western Europe. In fact, some think the word “clock” derives from the French, cloche , meaning bell. These early mechanisms had no dials and only rang bells. Within a few hundred years, dials were added to visually show the hour. By the 13th century, astronomer monks were creating complex movements with dials that had an hour hand and displayed Moon phases, the solstices, and equinoxes, and more.

One of the most famous astronomical clocks can be found down a side street in the old city of Prague. Built in 1410, it has been operating for more than 600 years. The beautiful dial looks like the front of an astrolabe and still provides complex astronomical information.

In the Middle Ages, knowing the hour was sufficient for everyday activity. Words like moment meant the passage of 15 minutes rather than a blink of an eye. As astronomy advanced, however, more precision was needed. This came courtesy of the regular motion of swinging pendulums, which Galileo studied at the beginning of the 17th century. In 1657, the Dutch astronomer Christiaan Huygens applied for a patent for a clock using the regular oscillation of a swinging pendulum to regulate the passage of time. Clocks were now accurate enough to not only justify both an hour and minute hand, but a second hand as well.

Navigating by time

Science, technology, and commerce often complement each other. In the 17th century, the three came together to tackle the difficult challenge of determining a ship’s longitude at sea.

In 1676, at the newly built Greenwich Observatory located outside of London, two unique clocks with 13-foot-long (4 meters) pendulums were installed. These clocks were accurate to within 10 seconds over the course of a day or better, dramatically increasing astronomers’ ability to make accurate observations.

The first astronomer royal, Sir John Flamsteed, wanted to know if Earth’s rotation was isochronical. In short, did Earth spin on its axis at a constant rate? With the new clocks, Flamsteed showed that the spinning of our planet was in fact constant. This provided the first link in the efforts to solve the longitude problem.

By the 18th century, navigators were using portable clocks driven by wound springs that could accurately maintain Greenwich time. By comparing them to their observed local solar time, they could determine their longitude hundreds of miles from land-based observatories.

Syncing time

As the 19th century neared, clocks and pocket watches had become common and fashionable. But how did you set them? With the garden sundial! When travel was by foot or horse, differences in “local” times were negligible and did not present a problem. But with the arrival of trains, all of this changed, and astronomy came to the rescue once more.

For every 15° of longitude either west or east of a designated meridian, the local solar time decreases or increases by one hour. That means for each degree of longitude, time changes by four minutes. If there is a sundial that shows noon at Greenwich, it would be 11:40 a.m. by a sundial in Oxford. Across Great Britain, there is a 30-minute difference in time. This was hard enough for railroads in a small country where every town adjusted its clocks to the local sundial. It was worse in North America, where time zones spanned three and a half hours! Each town used local sundials to set their clocks, while each railroad had a different standardized time for their published timetables. This made it almost impossible to have rail schedules that made any sense at all.

To solve this, astronomers divided the globe into 24 time zones. The starting point for these time zones was based on the meridian defined by specific observatories that made noon day observations. In England, it was the Greenwich Observatory, France used the observatory in Paris, and the U.S. used the Naval Observatory in Washington, D.C.

As telegraphs encircled the globe, it became possible to transmit time signals. In 1833, the Greenwich Observatory installed a bright red “time ball” mounted to a mast on the observatory roof. The ball dropped at precisely 1 p.m. every day, allowing ships on the River Thames to set their chronometers in reference to the observatory clock. By 1850, Astronomer Royal Sir George Airy was interested in “electrifying” time. Airy felt it was a national duty to provide Greenwich time to the nation. Daily time signals were being sent across England by the 1870s.

In America, astronomers also began to distribute time. The U.S. Naval Observatory sent occasional time signals as early as 1865. By 1869, the Allegheny Observatory near Pittsburgh began a time service for an area spanning New York, Chicago, and beyond. The signal was sent to railroads and jewelry stores. Jewelers placed connected clocks in their windows where customers could set their watches. Allegheny and other observatories charged fees to distribute these time services, allowing them to fund important astronomical research. Time really was money.

By the late 19th century, the situation had taken on international dimensions. In October 1884, delegates from around the world gathered in Washington, D.C., at the International Meridian Conference. The goal was to determine “a common zero of longitude.” Each of the 24 world time zones would be reckoned from one prime meridian and standardized to mean solar time. Thus, the beloved sundial was relegated to gardens and church cemeteries.

The meridian of the Greenwich Observatory was chosen as the zero point for the world’s time zones. The decision was made in part because of Greenwich’s historical association with timekeeping, and the fact that the United Kingdom still dominated maritime commerce. Not all of the 35 delegates were happy. In particular, the French insisted the prime meridian not be tied to any one nation and should be neutral. French clocks continued to use time issued from the Paris Observatory. They remained 9 minutes and 21 seconds ahead of Greenwich Mean Time (GMT) until March 10, 1911. Apparently, even time can be political.

Counting the days

Astronomers thrive on precision, and calendar dates can often be cumbersome and confusing. To be more precise, observations and events are often recorded by their Julian Date. The Julian period was the brainchild of the 16th century historian Joseph Justus Scaliger and begins on Jan. 1, 4713 b.c. This date is one where several cycles coincide: the 28-year solar cycle in the Julian calendar, after which the days of the year fall on the same days of the week; the 19-year Metonic cycle, when lunar phases recur on the same days of the year; and the 15-year indiction cycle, the tax cycle of the Roman Empire, which was another method for recording dates.

When John Herschel adapted Scaliger’s idea for astronomical use in 1849, he chose noon as the zero hour for the current Julian Period, thus avoiding a date change during nighttime observations. Julian Date is then simply the number of days that have passed since noon on Jan. 1, 4713 B.C.

In 1957, the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory created a Modified Julian Date, which begins at midnight GMT, Nov. 17, 1858. This made the day count considerably smaller and more manageable for early computers.

Time and astronomy are rooted in the way we order our lives. Ancient sky watchers looked to the sky to bring order to their world, and we still use astronomical cycles to set the very patterns of our lives. Astronomers have given these patterns order and precision in an effort to answer that age-old question: “What time is it?”

This breathtaking image features Messier 78 (the central and brightest region), a vibrant nursery of star formation enveloped in a shroud of interstellar dust. Credit: ESA.

Euclid’s new portraits of the dark universe are filled with detail, and wonder

This is an artistic impression of record-breaking quasar J059-4351. It's the bright core of a distant galaxy that is powered by a supermassive black hole like the one studied in this new research. Credit: ESO/M. Kornmesser

In a cosmic breakthrough, astronomers measure a supermassive black hole’s spin

A visualization of the Milky Way galaxy spotlights the two newfound streams of ancient stars, Shiva (green) and Shakti (pink). Credit: S. Payne-Wardenaar/K. Malhan/MPIA

Ancient star streams, named Shiva and Shakti, may be Milky Way’s earliest building blocks

Black holes, like the one in this illustration, can emit energetic neutrinos. Credit: NASA/Chandra X-ray Observatory.

IceCube researchers detect a rare type of particle sent from powerful astronomical objects

The largest digital camera ever made for astronomy is done

How to help astronomers study gamma-ray bursts.

The Europa Clipper spacecraft, to be launched to Jupiter’s water world moon in October 2024, includes a tantalum metal plate laser-engraved with the word for water in 103 languages from around the world. Each word is shown as a waveform. Credit: NASA/JPL-Caltech

These are the clever messages headed to Jupiter aboard NASA’s Europa Clipper

Yes, an exploding star close to earth would make for a very bad day.

The Milky Way’s central black hole could have a hidden jet

the eight types of time travel

Time travel is a stable in science fiction. Countless books, comics, movies, and TV shows have used it as their main plot device. Even more have incorporated it into a key moment of the story. Over the years, eight major types of time travel logic emerged. Recently, YouTubers Eric Voss and Héctor Navarro examined all eight types, and looked at which one gets it most correct in term of the real world science behind science fiction.

Type 1 Anything goes

Definition: Characters travel back and forth within their historical timeline.

This approach frees you to have fun and not get lost in the minutiae of how time travel works. Usually, there’s a magical Maguffin that to quote the great Dr. Ememett Brown, “makes time travel possible”. Writers have used a car, a phone booth, and a hot tub, among other options. This approach leads to inconsistent limits on the logic of the time travel, but this doesn’t mean the story is poorly plotted, won’t be enjoyable or won’t be an enormous hit. This approach is more science fantasy than science fiction with no basis in real-world science.

Examples: Back to the Future , Bill and Ted’s Excellent Adventure , Hot Tube Time Machine , Frequency , Austin Powers , Men In Black 3 , Deadpool 2 , The Simpsons , Galaxy Quest , Star Trek TOS , Doctor Who , 11/22/63 by Stephen King.

Type 2 Branch Reality

Definition: Changes to the past don’t rewrite history. They split the timeline into an alternate branch timeline. This action does not change or erase the original timeline.

As authors got more familiar with the science behind time travel in theoretical physics, this type, based upon the many worlds theory in quantum mechanics, emerged. When the character travels back into the past and changes events, they create a new reality. Their original reality is unchanged. Branches themselves can branch leading to a multiverse of possibilities.

Examples: The Disney Plus series, Loki , used this extensively. See also: Back to the Future Part II , Avenger’s Endgame , the DC Comics multiverse, the Marvel Comics multiverse, Rick and Morty , Star Trek (2009), A Wrinkle in Time by Madeleine L’Engle.

Type 3 Time Dilation

Definition: Characters traveling off-world experience time moving more slowly than elsewhere in the universe, allowing them to move forward in time (but not backward).

This type is the based upon our scientific understanding of how time slows down as you approach the speed of the light. This is a forward-only type of time travel. There’s no going backwards.

Examples: Planet of the Apes , Ender’s Game , Flight of the Navigator , Interstellar , Buck Rodgers .

Type 4 This Always Happened

Definition: All of time is fixed on a predestined loop in which the very act of time travel itself sets the events of the story into motion.

This one can confuse and delves closer to the realm of theology than science. It feels gimmicky, and has become something of a trope making it hard to pull this off in a satisfying way for your audience. This type also invites the audience to question if your protagonist ever had free will or agency in the story.

Examples: Terminator , Terminator 2 , Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban , Game of Thrones -Season 6, Twelve Monkeys , Interstellar , Kate and Leopold , The Butterfly Effect , Predestination , Ricky and Morty -Season 5, Looper .

Type 5 Seeing the Future

Definition: After seeing a vision of their fate, characters choose to change their destiny or embrace their lot.

We’re stretching to call this time travel, but it provides your story with built-in conflict and stakes. Will the hero choose to walk the path knowing how it will end, or will they choose a different path?

Examples: Oedipus Rex , A Christmas Carol , Minority Report , Arrival , Next (Nicolas Cage), Rick and Morty -Season Four. Star Trek:Discovery -Season 2, Avenger’s EndGame with Dr. Strange and the Mind Stone.

Type 6 Time Loop / Groundhog Day

Definition: Characters relive the same day over and over, resetting back to a respawn point once they die or become incapacitated.

This type gained popularity after the movie, Groundhog Day , became a tremendous hit. Most of the other examples take the Groundhog Day idea and put a slight twist on it. Like Type 4 “This Always Happened”, the popularity of this type can make it harder to pull off in a fresh and innovative way.

Examples: Obviously, Groundhog Day with Bill Murray. Edge of Tomorrow , Doctor Strange in the ending battle with Dormammu, Russian Dolls (Netflix), Palm Springs , Star Trek TNG .

Type 7 Unstuck Mind

Definition: Characters consciousness transport through time within his body to his life at different ages.

Nostalgia for the past and dreaming of the future are core parts of the human experience. This type runs more metaphorically than scientific.

Examples: Slaughterhouse 5 by Kurt Vonnegut, X-Men: Days of Future Past , Desmond in the series Lost .

Type 8 Unstuck Body

Definition: A character’s body or object becomes physically detached from the flow of time within the surrounding universe, becoming inverted or younger. Only certain objects or bodies are unstuck from time. Also called Inverted Entropy.

This one will blow your mind if you think about it for too long. Like Type 2 “Branch Reality”, this one comes from the realm of quantum mechanics and theoretical physics. Scientists and mathematicians have all the formulas worked out to make this de-aging a reality, but currently lack the technology to control all the variables in the ways needed. It would like scientists working out than an object could break the speed of the sound in 1890. It would look inconceivable, given the technology of the day, but I wouldn’t put limits on human ingenuity.

Examples: Dr. Strange (the Hong Kong battle). Tenet , briefly in Endgame with Scott Lang and Bruce, Primer .

If you’re writing a time travel story, you’ll need to decide which one of these types you want to deploy. They all have their advantages and disadvantages. In many ways, its similar to designing your magic system, especially if you go with a Type 1 time travel story. The most important thing remains to have relatable characters and to tell a great story while being internally consistent with the rules and logic of your story world.

Ted Atchley is a freelance writer and professional computer programmer. Whether it’s words or code, he’s always writing. Ted’s love for speculative fiction started early on with Lewis’ Chronicles of Narnia, and the Star Wars movies. This led to reading Marvel comics and eventually losing himself in Asimov’s Apprentice Adept and the world of Krynn ( Dragonlance Chronicles ).

After blogging on his own for several years, Blizzard Watch ( blizzardwatch.com ) hired Ted to be a regular columnist in 2016. When the site dropped many of its columns two years later, they retained Ted as a staff writer.

He lives in beautiful Charleston, SC with his wife and children. When not writing, you’ll find him spending time with his family, and cheering on his beloved Carolina Panthers. He’s currently revising his work-in-progress portal fantasy novel before preparing to query.

Ted has a quarterly newsletter which you can join here . You’ll get the latest on his writing and publishing as well as links about writing, Star Wars, and/or Marvel.

Teaching Your Characters to Fight Write- Laura L. Zimmerman

How to make readers feel at home from page 1, no comments, leave a reply cancel reply.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed .

A Writer’s Guide to Crafting the Perfect Resume

How i spent the mesozoic era.

Follow Us Elsewhere

Latest tweets, recent posts.

Pitch Opportunities

Writers Up!

Summaries, Analysis & Lists

Time Travel Short Stories: Examples Online

The short stories on this page all contain some form of time travel, including time loops. Some of them contain time machines or other technologies that makes the trip possible; in other stories the jump in time doesn’t have an obvious explanation. They don’t all involve obvious trips to the past or future. Sometimes, the story simply contains an element that is out of place in time. See also:

Short Stories About Time Travel

“caveat time traveler” by gregory benford.

The narrator spots the man from the past immediately. The visitor identifies himself. He’s surprised to find he’s not the first visitor from the past. He wants to take something back to prove he made it.

“Caveat Time Travel” can be read in the preview of The Mammoth Book of Time Travel SF.

“Absolutely Inflexible” by Robert Silverberg

A time traveler in a spacesuit sits in Mahler’s office. He’s informed that he’ll be sent to the Moon, where all visitors from the past have to go. The man tries to get out of it, but Mahler explains why no exceptions are possible.

“Absolutely Inflexible” can be read in the preview of Time and Time Again : Sixteen Trips in Time.

“Yesterday Was Monday” by Theodore Sturgeon

When Harry Wright wakes up on Wednesday morning he realizes that yesterday was Monday. Somehow there is a gap. He notices that his environment doesn’t quite seem complete.

“Yesterday Was Monday” can be read in the preview of The Best Time Travel Stories of the 20th Century.

“Death Ship” by Richard Matheson

The crew of a spaceship is collecting samples from various planets to determine their suitability for human habitation. While nearing a new planet, Mason spots a metallic flash. The crew speculates that it might be a ship. Captain Ross orders a landing to check it out.

“Death Ship” can be read in the preview of The Time Traveler’s Almanac.

“The Third Level” by Jack Finney

The narrator has been to the third level of Grand Central Station, even though everyone else believes there are only two. He’s just an ordinary guy and doesn’t know why he discovered this unknown level. He relates how it happened.

“The Third Level” can be read in the preview of About Time: 12 Short Stories.

“A Touch of Petulance” by Ray Bradbury

Jonathan Hughes met his fate in the form of an old man while he rode the train home from work. He noticed the old man’s newspaper looked more modern than his own. There was a story on the front page about a murdered woman—his wife. His mind raced.

This story can be read in the preview of Killer, Come Back To Me: The Crime Stories of Ray Bradbury.

“Rip Van Winkle” by Washington Irving

Rip Van Winkle is lazy at home but helpful to, and well-liked by, his neighbors. He’s out in the mountains one day to get away from things. With night approaching, he starts for home but meets up with a group of men. He has something to drink and goes to sleep, which changes everything.

This story can be read in the preview of The Big Book of Classic Fantasy .

“Twilight” by John W. Campbell

Jim picks up a hitch-hiker, Ares, who says he’s a scientist from the year 3059. He says he traveled millions of years into the future, but came back to the wrong year. Life in 3059 is trouble free, with machines taking care of everything. Future Earth is in trouble, with all life extinct, except for humans and plants.

This is the second story in the preview of The Science Fiction Hall of Fame: Vol 1 . (49% into preview)

“The Man Who Walked Home” by James Tiptree, Jr.

An accident at the Bonneville Particle Acceleration Facility decimated the Earth’s population and severely damaged the biosphere and surface. Decades later, a huge flat creature emerges from the crater at the explosion site and promptly disappeared. There are other sightings in the years that follow.

This story can be read in the preview of the anthology Timegates . (18% into preview)

“An Assassin in Time” by S. A. Asthana

Navy Seal Jessica Kravitz recovers from the effects of the time jump. She’s done it before, but there are always side-effects. She’s on a highly classified, very important, and expensive mission. Previous jumps have familiarized her with the grounds. This time, she should be able to reach her target.

This story can be read in the preview of AT THE EDGES: Short Science Fiction, Thriller and Horror Stories . (17% in)

“The Merchant and the Alchemist’s Gate” by Ted Chiang

Fuwaad, a fabric merchant, appears before the Caliph to recount a remarkable story. While looking for a gift, he entered a large shop with a new owner. It had a marvelous assortment of offerings, all made by the owner or under his direction. Fuwaad is led into the back where he’s shown a small hoop that manipulates time. He also has a larger gateway that people can walk through. The owner tells Fuwaad the stories of a few who did just that.

This story is on the longer side but doesn’t feel like it. Most of “The Merchant and the Alchemist’s Gate” can be read in the Amazon preview of Exhalation: Stories .

“Time Locker” by Harry Kuttner

Gallegher is a scientist—drunken, erratic and brilliant. He invents things but pays them little attention after. His acquaintance Vanning, an unscrupulous lawyer, has made use of some of these inventions, including a neuro-gun that he rents out. During a visit he sees a locker that is bigger inside than out. Fascinated with the item’s possibilities, he offers to purchase it.

Some of “Time Locker” can be read in the preview of The Best Time Travel Stories of the 20th Century.

Time Travel Short Stories, Cont’d

“All You Zombies” by Robert A. Heinlein

A young man explains to a bartender that he was born a girl. He (she) gave birth to a child and there were complications. The doctors noticed he (she) was a hermaphrodite and performed an emergency sex-change operation.

A lot of this story can be read in the preview of “ All You Zombies—”: Five Classic Stories .

“The Hundred-Light-Year Diary” by Greg Egan

The narrator meets his future wife, Alison, for lunch exactly when he knew he would. His diary told him. Everyone alive is allotted a hundred words a day to send back to themselves.

Most of this story can be read in the preview of Axiomatic . (Select Kindle first then Preview, 57% in)

“The Dead Past” by Isaac Asimov

Arnold Potterley, a Professor of Ancient History, wants to use the chronoscope—the ability to view a scene from the past—for his research on Carthage. The government maintains strict control over its use, and his request is denied. Frustrated, Potterley embarks on a plan to get around this restriction, which is professionally risky.

Some of this story can be read in the preview of The Complete Stories, Vol 1 . (6% in)

“Signal Moon” by Kate Quinn

Working with the Royal Naval Service, Lily Baines intercepts radio communications to enemy vessels for decoding. One night, everything changes when she picks up an impossible message—a plea for help from another time.

Preview of “Signal Moon”

“Journey to the Seed” by Alejo Carpentier

An old man wanders around a demolition site, muttering a string of incomprehensible phrases. The roof has been removed and, by evening, most of the house is down. When the site is deserted, the old man waves his walking stick over a pile of discarded tiles. They fly back and cover the floor. The house continues to rebuild. Inside, Don Marcial lies on his deathbed.

“A Sound of Thunder” by Ray Bradbury

In the future, a company offers guided hunting safaris into the past to kill dinosaurs. Extreme care is taken to ensure nothing happens that could alter the present.

Read “A Sound of Thunder” (PDF Pg. 3)

“That Feeling, You Can Only Say What It Is In French” by Stephen King

Carol and Bill, married twenty-five years, are on their second honeymoon, driving to their destination. Carol experiences déjà vu; voices and images keep coming to her mind. Their drive comes to an end and she finds herself at an earlier point in their trip.

“The Clock That Went Backward” by Edward Page Mitchell

The narrator recounts the discovery surrounding a clock left to his cousin Harry by his Aunt Gertrude. As young boys they witnessed a strange event. Late one night Aunt Gertrude wound the clock, put her face to the dial, and then kissed and caressed it. The hands were moving backward. She fell to the floor when it stopped.

Read “The Clock That Went Backward”

“Soldier (Soldier from Tomorrow)” by Harlan Ellison

Qarlo, a soldier, is fighting in the Great War VII. He doesn’t expect to be able to go back. The odds are against it. Qarlo anticipates the Regimenter’s order and gets warped off the battlefield. He’s not sure where he is but his instincts kick in.

“The Men Who Murdered Mohammed” by Alfred Bester

Henry Hassel comes home to find his wife in the arms of another man. He could get his revenge immediately but he has a more intellectual plan. He gets a revolver and builds a time machine. He goes into the past.

“Cosmic Corkscrew” by Michael A. Burstein

The narrator is sent back to 1938 to make a copy of a rejected story by an unnamed writer. Unknown to Dr. Scheihagen, the narrator adjusts his arrival to three days earlier. He wants to make contact with the writer.

“Time’s Arrow” by Arthur C. Clarke

Barton and Davis, geologists, are assisting Professor Fowler with an excavation. The professor receives an invitation to visit a nearby research facility. Barton and Davis are curious to know what goes on there. The professor says he will fill them in, but after his visit he says he’s been asked not to talk about it. Henderson, from the research facility, returns the visit. Something he says starts the geologists speculating about a device that could see into the past.

“The Final Days” by David Langford

Harman and Ferris, presidential candidates, are participating in a televised debate. Ferris is struggling to connect with the audience while Harman relishes the attention. The technician signals Harman that there are fourteen watchers. His confidence increases.

Read “The Final Days”

“Hwang’s Billion Brilliant Daughters” by Alice Sola Kim

When Hwang is in a time he likes he tries to stay awake. Hwang jumps ahead in time when he sleeps. It could only be a few days; it could be years.

Read “Hwang’s Billion Brilliant Daughters”

“Fish Night” by Joe R. Lansdale

Two traveling salesmen, a father and son, get broke down on a desert road. They sit by the car and talk about how hard it is to make a living. The father tells his son about an unusual experience he had on the same road years ago.

Read “Fish Night”

“The Fox and the Forest” by Ray Bradbury

William and Susan Travis have gone to Mexico in 1938. They’re enjoying a local celebration. William assures Susan that they’re safe—they have traveler’s checks to last a lifetime, and he’s confident they won’t be found. Susan notices a conspicuous man in a café looking at them. She thinks he could be a Searcher, but William says he’s nobody.

“A Statue for Father” by Isaac Asimov

The narrator tells the story of his father, a theoretical physicist who researched time travel. He’s celebrated now, but it was a difficult climb. When time travel research fell out of favor, the dean forced him out. He continued the research independently with his son. Eventually, they succeed in holding a window open long enough for the son to reach in. He brings back some dinosaur eggs.

“The Pendulum” by Ray Bradbury

Layeville has been swinging in a massive glass pendulum for a long time. The people call him The Prisoner of Time. It’s his punishment for his crime. He had constructed a time machine and invited thirty of the world’s preeminent scientists to attend the unveiling.

Read The Pendulum

“Who’s Cribbing?” by Jack Lewis

A writer has his manuscript returned by a publisher. The story he submitted was published years before—he obviously plagiarized it. They warn him against doing this again. The writer has never heard of the author who first wrote the story and claims it’s an original work.

“Who’s Cribbing” is in Time Machines: The Best Time Travel Stories Ever Written.

I’ll keep adding short stories about time travel and time machines as I find more.

COMMENTS

Time travel
The first page of The Time Machine published by Heinemann. Time travel is the hypothetical activity of traveling into the past or future.Time travel is a widely recognized concept in philosophy and fiction, particularly science fiction. In fiction, time travel is typically achieved through the use of a hypothetical device known as a time machine.The idea of a time machine was popularized by H ...
Is Time Travel Possible?
In Summary: Yes, time travel is indeed a real thing. But it's not quite what you've probably seen in the movies. Under certain conditions, it is possible to experience time passing at a different rate than 1 second per second. And there are important reasons why we need to understand this real-world form of time travel.
Time Travel
Time Travel. Time travel is commonly defined with David Lewis' definition: An object time travels if and only if the difference between its departure and arrival times as measured in the surrounding world does not equal the duration of the journey undergone by the object. For example, Jane is a time traveler if she travels away from home in ...
Time Travel
Time Travel. First published Thu Nov 14, 2013; substantive revision Fri Mar 22, 2024. There is an extensive literature on time travel in both philosophy and physics. Part of the great interest of the topic stems from the fact that reasons have been given both for thinking that time travel is physically possible—and for thinking that it is ...
Time Travel
Time Travel. Arguably, we are always travelling though time, as we move from the past into the future. But time travel usually refers to the possibility of changing the rate at which we travel into the future, or completely reversing it so that we travel into the past. Although a plot device in fiction since the 19 th Century (see the section ...
Where Does the Concept of Time Travel Come From?
One of the first known examples of time travel appears in the Mahabharata, an ancient Sanskrit epic poem compiled around 400 B.C., Lisa Yaszek, a professor of science fiction studies at the ...
Where Does the Concept of Time Travel Come From?
Perhaps because of this connection between space and time, the possibility that time can be experienced in different ways and traveled through has surprisingly early roots. One of the first known examples of time travel appears in the Mahabharata, an ancient Sanskrit epic poem compiled around 400 B.C., Lisa Yaszek, a professor of science ...
Time travel
Science says time travel is possible. Here, we explore some of the theories behind time travel and the science that supports time-bending.
Time Travel and Modern Physics
Time travel has been a staple of science fiction. With the advent of general relativity it has been entertained by serious physicists. But, especially in the philosophy literature, there have been arguments that time travel is inherently paradoxical. The most famous paradox is the grandfather paradox: you travel back in time and kill your ...
Time Travel
Time travel is a philosophical growth industry, with many issues in metaphysics and elsewhere recently transformed by consideration of time travel possibilities. The debate has gradually shifted from focusing on time travel's logical possibility (which possibility is now generally although not universally granted) to sundry topics including ...
Can we time travel? A theoretical physicist provides some answers
Time travel makes regular appearances in popular culture, with innumerable time travel storylines in movies, television and literature. But it is a surprisingly old idea: ...
A beginner's guide to time travel
A beginner's guide to time travel. Learn exactly how Einstein's theory of relativity works, and discover how there's nothing in science that says time travel is impossible. Everyone can travel in ...
Time
Time travel to the future presupposes the metaphysical theory of eternalism because, if you travel to the future, there must be a future that you travel to. Presentism and the growing-past theory deny the existence of this future. In 1976, the Princeton University metaphysician David Lewis offered this technical definition of time travel:
TIME TRAVEL Definition & Meaning
Time travel definition: hypothetical transport through time into the past or the future.. See examples of TIME TRAVEL used in a sentence.
The Scientific Possibilities of Time Travel
Time and Relativity . Though referenced in H.G. Wells' The Time Machine (1895), the actual science of time travel didn't come into being until well into the twentieth century, as a side-effect of Albert Einstein's theory of general relativity (developed in 1915). Relativity describes the physical fabric of the universe in terms of a 4-dimensional spacetime, which includes three spatial ...
TIME TRAVEL
TIME TRAVEL definition: 1. the idea of travelling into the past or the future 2. the idea of traveling into the past or the…. Learn more.
Time travel
Other articles where time travel is discussed: science fiction: Time travel: A complement to travel through space is travel through time. A prototype of the time travel story is Charles Dickens's A Christmas Carol (1843). The story features the Ghost of Christmas Yet to Come, who is magically able to immerse the hapless Scrooge…
Paradox-Free Time Travel Is Theoretically Possible, Researchers Say
In a peer-reviewed journal article, University of Queensland physicists say time is essentially self-healing. Changes in the past wouldn't necessarily cause a universe-ending paradox. Phew.
A brief history of time: What is it and how do we define it?
In October 1884, delegates from around the world gathered in Washington, D.C., at the International Meridian Conference. The goal was to determine "a common zero of longitude.". Each of the 24 ...
the eight types of time travel
Type 6 Time Loop / Groundhog Day. Definition: Characters relive the same day over and over, resetting back to a respawn point once they die or become incapacitated. This type gained popularity after the movie, Groundhog Day, became a tremendous hit.Most of the other examples take the Groundhog Day idea and put a slight twist on it. Like Type 4 "This Always Happened", the popularity of this ...
Time Travel Short Stories: Examples Online
Time Travel Short Stories. The short stories on this page all contain some form of time travel, including time loops. Some of them contain time machines or other technologies that makes the trip possible; in other stories the jump in time doesn't have an obvious explanation. They don't all involve obvious trips to the past or future.

Is Time Travel Possible?

How do we know that time travel is possible?

Can we use time travel in everyday life?

In Summary:

If you liked this, you may like:

Time Travel

Time Travel Scenarios

Faster-Than-Light Particles

Time Travel Paradoxes

Physics of Time

Time travel: Is it possible?

Albert Einstein's theory

Science fiction

General relativity and GPS time travel

Can wormholes take us back in time?

Alternate time travel theories

Infinite cylinder theory

Time donuts

Books about time travel:

Movies about time travel:

Television about time travel:

Games about time travel:

Additional resources

Get the Space.com Newsletter

Most Popular

Bibliography

Time Travel and Modern Physics

1. Paradoxes Lost?

Support SEP

How to Subscribe

In This Article Expand or collapse the "in this article" section Time Travel

Related Articles Expand or collapse the "related articles" section about

Other Subject Areas

Time Travel by Alasdair Richmond LAST REVIEWED: 26 October 2015 LAST MODIFIED: 26 October 2015 DOI: 10.1093/obo/9780195396577-0295

Can we time travel? A theoretical physicist provides some answers

Disclosure statement

Laws of physics

Resolving paradoxes

Time is a river

Head of School, School of Arts & Social Sciences, Monash University Malaysia

Chief Operating Officer (COO)

Clinical Teaching Fellow

Data Manager

Director, Social Policy

A beginner's guide to time travel

A party for time travelers

The arrow of time

Time travel paradox

Sign up for the Live Science daily newsletter now

Most Popular

time travel

Discover More

Is Time Travel Possible?

Time and Relativity

Early Time Travel

Time Travel and Black Holes

Meaning of time travel in English

Examples of time travel

Learn more with +Plus

Paradox-Free Time Travel Is Theoretically Possible, Researchers Say

A brief history of time: What is it and how do we define it?

The beginning of time

Syncing time

Euclid’s new portraits of the dark universe are filled with detail, and wonder

In a cosmic breakthrough, astronomers measure a supermassive black hole’s spin

Ancient star streams, named Shiva and Shakti, may be Milky Way’s earliest building blocks

IceCube researchers detect a rare type of particle sent from powerful astronomical objects

The largest digital camera ever made for astronomy is done

These are the clever messages headed to Jupiter aboard NASA’s Europa Clipper

The Milky Way’s central black hole could have a hidden jet

the eight types of time travel

Type 1 Anything goes

Type 2 Branch Reality

Type 3 Time Dilation

Type 4 This Always Happened

Type 5 Seeing the Future

Type 6 Time Loop / Groundhog Day

Type 7 Unstuck Mind

Type 8 Unstuck Body

You Might Also Like