# Is time travel possible? Is it possible to go back in time?

I read somewhere that according to relativity, black holes and other space related stuff it is possible to jump into past.
Is it possible for anything to go back in time either continuously or by jumping?

I doesn't fit my mind and seems totally illogical, unreasonable and even stupid thought because if it was possible, we must had someone who came from future.

-
One of the things that often get lost when talking about time travel is that actually the observer continues in his/her own time (!) but the rest of the universe goes back! So it is not "you" who is travelling back in time - on the contrary: if the was a shift in the time of the universe nobody would even realize! – vonjd Jan 20 '11 at 14:50
@Raskolnikov--Yes, and Nahin has written some other good books --amazon.com/Imaginary-Tale-Princeton-Library-Science/dp/… or Richard Gott--Time Travel in Einstein's Universe--amazon.com/Time-Travel-Einsteins-Universe-Possibilities/dp/… – Gordon Feb 2 '11 at 1:11
Some people say ctcs (time travel) is ok but apply a causal consistency rule. – Gordon Feb 2 '11 at 1:17
i think that 'casuality' should avoid travelling back in time. the TIME MACHINE or whatever can only start working from the instant is created to the future. although there are the so called HIGGS SINGLET who can travel around the fifth dimension :D to send 'messages' from the Future. – Jose Javier Garcia Jun 11 '12 at 13:00

It is mathematically possible to create some instances in which an object goes back in time relative to some observer. For example, simply going faster than light causes such an effect, but of course, speed of light is the limit for any massive object.

While it is mathematically possible, there are many paradoxes caused by time travel to past, unless you accept existence of some sorts of multiverses, which doesn't really qualify as a time travel to past anyway, rather travel between said multiverses. Mainly, and most importantly, time travel to past violates "casuality", one of the main principles the universe is thought to have, in which the cause precedes the result, i.e. your father is born before you are born. Through time travel to past, it is possible for the "result" to eliminate its "cause" before it causes the result, that is, you killing your father before you were conceived. This is not the only paradox caused by time travel to past, however this is one of the main ones.

Also, I think it was Hawking that suggested this, we see no time-travelers around us, pointing out to the fact that humanity will not achieve the technology to go back in time as far as it wants. HOWEVER, it is possible that time travel to past may be discovered, only limited to taking travelers back to the creation of the machine, as some time travel machines work on this principle, namely wormholes.

Needless to say, wormholes require extremely exotic conditions to form and maintain, and therefore are very far from being created deliberately, if they even exist.

-
"it was Hawking that suggested this" I never knew, Hawking must have copied it from me. :) – LifeH2O Dec 22 '10 at 22:20
I am not sure this contains any actual physics. It's more like a usual time-traveling reasoning one can read in every other sci-fi book :-) How about mentioning that geodetic continuation of rotating Kerr black hole allows getting to the "other side" of the ring singularity (without hitting it) and there it's possible to go back in time by traveling along the torus attached to the singularity from the "other side". If the BH would be moreover naked, this would allow time travel. So GR definitely allows time-traveling solutions. Another thing would be practical realization of such a process :-) – Marek Dec 22 '10 at 23:19
@Noldorin: certainly. I just wanted to say that on a physics site I'd expect answers talking about GR and technical stuff, not about killing your father because one can talk about that over at sci-fi.SE when it reaches beta in a few days :-) – Marek Dec 23 '10 at 9:30
@Marek: LifeH2O does not seem to be an expert on physics, let alone detailed calculations of GR. I am answering HIS question and in the level that he can easily comprehend. If I were to write a wall of GR calculations, it would not mean as much to him as the question is on a popular level, not a scientific level. – Cem Dec 23 '10 at 11:57
@Marek: I totally agree. A bit more hard core physics content would be nice. :) – Noldorin Dec 23 '10 at 15:46

There are solutions to Einstein's field equations, which have closed timelike curves. For example Godel's solution. Would that constitute time travel, if you can reach the same point on your world line in finite time? One objection may be that such solution do not describe the universe, but examples as the Tipler's cylinder suggest that at least in theory we could modify parts of the universe to get closed timelike curves. Another objection may be that to talk about past and future you need linear order on time moments, which is not the case for closed curves.

-

I think this is the "gold standard" of time travel articles in the refereed literature.

For popular literature, this is my favorite

And for movies, this is the best I have ever seen (other than "Back to the Future" of course, but that is only for nostalgic, and not physics reasons)

-

Relativity consists of special relativity (SR) and its generalization general relativity (GR), which includes gravity.

In SR, the history of an object is described by its world-line through spacetime. Every event has future and past light cones, and a material object such as a person's body is limited to "traveling" from the past light cone to the future light cone. Therefore you can't have a world-line that forms a closed loop. A world-line such as a material object's that always stays inside the light cone is called timelike.

In GR the situation is considerably modified. GR allows the existence of closed timelike curves (CTCs), which, although timelike everywhere, nevertheless close back on themselves. To conceptualize this, you can imagine drawing an ordinary timelike world-line on a piece of paper, but then wrapping the paper up into a cylinder. As far as we know, our universe doesn't contain CTCs, and there is no natural or artificial process that could create them. If the universe doesn't already contain any CTCs, then it's believed (Hawking 1992) that creating a new CTC from scratch would require exotic forms of matter (essentially, matter with negative mass). Even if one did have access to exotic matter, creating a CTC would require manipulation of matter on a godlike scale.

Supposing that a CTC exists, there are all kinds of other issues that come up involving causality (time-travel paradoxes) and quantum mechanics. A good (but somewhat out of date) popular-level discussion is given in Thorne 1995.

Hawking, S.W., (1992) The chronology protection conjecture. Phys. Rev. D46, 603-611.

Thorne, Black Holes and Time Warps: Einstein's Outrageous Legacy

-

IMO the answer is no. I share the Israel Pérez view that time is not an entity 'de per se'. It is a mental construct percieved upon the existence of motion.

See number 7 (pages 6/7) A physicist’s view of the universe: a philosophical approach

Understanding what time 'is', and what it is not, is fundamental to my answer. Mathematically we can do whatever we like as long we dont contradict, but we need a physical and philosophical insight when we try to understand the universe. This understanding narrows what can happen.

The whole paper seems to me very interesting at several levels. I think that he partially shares the view exposed by Espinosa in 'Ethics' about space/matter (available via the Guttenberg Project).

-

To recall a memory and immerse yourself in it so fully as to forget yourself is to go back in time. Memories are the time capsules preserving the past. So, yes, it's possible to go back in time, and in fact, is the only way.

-

## protected by Qmechanic♦Mar 17 at 21:43

This question is protected to prevent "thanks!", "me too!", or spam answers by new users. To answer it, you must have earned at least 10 reputation on this site.