Backward causation : contradiction?

cubano

Temporal Novice
We have seen that time travel to the past would require backward causation, i.e. an earlier event to be caused by a later event. Causation is a matter of changing, or making a difference to, the ways things are. So, in order to cause something to have happened, one would have to change the way things were in the past. But this involves a contradiction, since to say, e.g., that I change the way things were last week, is to say both that things were a certain way last week, and that they were also not that way (since I change them). It follows that time travel to the past is an impossibility, since it is not possible for a contradiction to be true.

Is this a convincing argument? Discuss.
 
cubano,

In the Classical sense of causality you're correct. But there are space-time topologies that don't preclude the appearance of effect preceding cause.

Take the topology of a closed timelike curve (CTC)...a circle if you will. You can have a series of events along the circle that would appear to occur in the order Effect -> Cause. But if time is looped into a circle that is not especially a problem because it is self-consistent. On the first time through the loop "effect" comes first followed by "cause". But on the second loop, because "cause" already appears the traveler next encounters "effect".

This description is actually one of the topologies of cosmology that is being studied relative to the Big Bang event. If the universe begins, not as a singularity, but as a CTC then in a self-consistent manner you don't have to ask the question, "What event caused the Big Bang if there was no space-time before the Big Bang?"

This doesn't mean, though, that time travel to the past is something that is easily accomplished. That topology required the mass-energy of the entire universe. Most real theories that propose time travel to the past also require mass on the order of dozens to billions of stars...and then only allow at most a few years of travel. Even then, the theories have huge problems to overcome to make them workable.

But that's why we have people like Rainman. Physicists propose theories. Engineers are left to work out the "little" details.


BTW: There is a more practicle way of looking at the Cause-Effect ordering problem that has been experimentally verified.

Take the case of a distant star where some event occurs that leaves physical evidence of cause-effect in the stream of photons emitted by the event.

Normally we, here on Earth, would see the event played out in the "correct" order. But what if there is a large black hole between the star and Earth and the photon stream passes by both sides of the black hole on its way to Earth?

You have a gravitational lense in this case. Photons react to gravity - their path is bent by the gravitational field. Because this occurs we could see, here on Earth, the photons of the effect arriving before the photons of the cause because the effect ended up taking a shorter path through space-time to arrive here.
 
Hi again Darby,
But that's why we have people like Rainman. Physicists propose theories. Engineers are left to work out the "little" details.
This brings to mind a "battle royale" that I am sitting on the sidelines and watching as it develops on the internet. Not sure if you know Jack Sarfatti, but I'd bet a dozen donuts you know (or know of) Hal Puthoff. These two have different approaches to propulsion advances, even though much of their conclusions seem to agree with one another. I attribute the difference in their approaches to their different career backgrounds. Hal was an engineer, first and foremost. He understands that "what good is an equation if I cannot apply it?" Jack, OTOH, is theoretical through-and-through. His math is impeccable (WELL above my capabilities), but he does not apologize for not being able to translate it into practical (i.e. engineering) implementations. He claims "that is for others, for the engineers to figure out." This attitude of Jack's is what has me holding back from fully supporting him, because as engineers we are taught "the whole job is ours"... meaning we need to understand and develop the application mathematics in order to make sure the "widget" we intend to build will work. Engineers don't sit around waiting for some theoretician to "dream up" a new equation that we can apply. This is why I like Einstein's experimental approach, even if his level of math is not up to my standards. /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif

I tend to think that a combination of Jack and Hal's work will eventually get us where we want to go. But until then I am holding my bets. However, given that I am an engineer you know I am rooting for Hal... and can often understand his analysis because he couches them in potential applications. Jack's theoretical analysis often leaves me wondering "and......???? What's next? How do I APPLY this in a real-world problem?"

Cheers!
RMT
 
Thank you Darby. I'm taking a philospohy class at the moment and we have been confronted with this question along with others. Albeit this past class was the first class of the semester, it is nice to jump into all of this headfirst I suppose. It's all a little overwhelming but extremely fascinating and I'm glad there is a forum where I can read the insights from such bright people. Thanks again Darby and I'm sure I'll be sparking up more conversation in the future if not just asking elementary questions.

cubano
 
cubano,


Thanks. /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif And don't forget Rainman. As he explained in his last post, he's the engineer.
 
Rainman,

I've seen both fellows posting on SPR and a couple other UseNet forums. Yep - Jack knows his math and he's all theoretical.

I was reading Feynman a few weeks ago and he made a comment along the lines that you allude to above. He felt that most of the time mathematicians generally make poor physicists or engineers becaue they only see the math rather than the pitcure that it paints. They also tend to "believe" their math without question. They often fail to apply the math results to the experrimental side to see if the result is real or a phantom. He also said that physicists don't make good engineers because they generally only see the Big Picture - the theory - and then move on to another theoretical challenge. They leave the applied physics up to the engineers. Ultimately he said that the best physicists were also great engineers...and that they were few and far between.

I think that there's also a practical side that explains why physicists don't get involved with applied engineering. Most working physicists are professors. Their department is funded by research grants and the school of theoretical physics would likely have a hard time getting funded for an applied engineering grant, not to mention that the school of engineering would probably have a problem with "their" grant being funded to the physics department.

Just a thought...

Another thought...

I have a hunch that physicists might find the grunt work of engineering to be boring or even beyond their capabilities. You received a lot of math and physics at the university They received a lot of math and physics at the university. But they probably received just some engineering basics in school. They aren't the experts because they don't have the same education that you have. They probably didn't take auto shop in high school either. Turning a wrench, terminating cables and stripping wire might be a tall task for them.
 
cubano,

After posting the topology message above I checked my physics library at home. Professor J. Richard Gott published a pop-sci book a few years ago that is probably still available at BOrders or Amazon. The title is "Time Travel in Einstein's Universe: The Physical Possibilities of Travel Through Time."

The book has no math and he throws out a lot of theories that are being worked on. The one that I refered to can be found on page 187. Its based on a paper published by Gott and Li Xin Li ["Can the Universe Create Itself?", J. R. Gott and L. -X. Li, Phys. Rev. D 58, 023501 (1998)].

The abstract can be viewed here: http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PRD/v58/i2/e023501

You can view the entire paper on ArXiv: http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/9712/9712344.pdf
 
Back
Top