Quantum Physics is Time Travel Theoretically Feasible – Yes

Quinn Gibson's image for:
"Quantum Physics is Time Travel Theoretically Feasible - Yes"
Image by: 

I find no compelling philosophical reason why Quantum Mechanics makes time travel any more or less theoretically feasible than before serious Quantum science got underway. Of course, the entire intricate workings of the world on the Quantum level are so patently bizarre that such fancies seem more plausible when considered in light of them. But the stipulation that makes time travel seem like it has no theoretical strikes against it seems entirely reasonable to me, even if most of the reasons come independently of Q.M.

If we endeavor to understand throughly and correctly what time consists in, then it will become clear whether passage through it in a direction of our choosing is reasonable. If it can be construed as an additional dimension in the geometrical structure of the universe, as it almost universally is, there is no ontological reason why time travel should be impossible. However, it seems like it is not as clean cut as that when certain logical problems are considered. When logical problems arise, typically they are caused by inconsistent concepts and if our concept of time is inaccurate, the correct one might present no such conflict. The logical problems that come to mind mostly involve causal sufficiency and the linearity of time. Case in point, the time worn example of what happens if you go back in time and kill your grandmother before your mother was conceived such that you could be conceived to go back in time and kill your grandmother. The worry is large: something in the strongest sense of impossible just happened when you both did and did not do that same thing. This kind of logical impossibility is obviously an instant indicator of absurdity UNLESS, something was misrepresented conceptually in the reductio ad absurdum. Like, if time were incorrectly understood, for instance.

This conceptual analysis of time seems to me to be a philosophical labor, even though many of the chief theoretical postulates may come from Q.M., or other theories of natural science. Time construed as linear is subject to the Aristotelean worry about infinite divisibility, and Laplace showed that any potential infinity presupposes an actual infinity. Of course, if we were to accept this notion of time, Zeno's paradoxes would come biting us in the ass and arrows would cease to move and Achilles could never catch the Tortoise etc. When the linearity restriction is lifted, many conceptually foreign things occur. For example, time may be permitted to present discontinuities, or circular structure on a mirco-level. These bizarre consequences, outlandish as they may seem, present no LOGICAL difficulty and thus, the only difficulties with it are purely contingent. If time is dimensionally integrated into the geometry of the universe, then it is firmly a contingent matter, because no physical instantiation of any property can be logically necessary and structural considerations are physical instantiations of a property, namely, a geometric property.

I think Q.M. is largely responsible for making known the ripples and imperfections present on the micro-scale, and causing wonder about whether there are any tangible repercussions at the marco-level. Since the postulates of Q.M. are themselves logical atoms, they would come into conflict with the logical atoms that compose our conception of time if there were any friction. Since Q.M. is an empirical theory of the physical world, it provides a way of testing our conception of time against something verifiable, although indirectly, since such a conceptual conflict would be painfully evident if they were present, and would immediately tell of a problem with out account of time.

Q.M. is relevant to the time-travel question and I think it importantly highlights the inner workings of where the real labor is going on. And of that: I see no reason to think that time travel is conceptually impossible, especially quantumly informed. And since I prefer to put the onus on those who deny such great and ambitious postulations that seem at once so plausible, I beseech the detractors to convince me otherwise.

More about this author: Quinn Gibson

From Around the Web