Once a week.
Subscribe to our weekly newsletter.
Neil deGrasse Tyson Explains the Strange Paradoxes of Time Travel
Astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson explains the nature of time and the conundrums of time travel in a recent interview.
Astrophysicist and science educator Neil deGrasse Tyson gave a fascinating interview recently to Jake Roper of Vsauce3, where he talked at length about the nature of time and the possibility of time travel.
Tyson thinks the most dramatic impact on our current understanding of time came from Einstein's discovery of general relativity. Time stopped being a linear, necessarily sequential idea where “we are all participating in the same ticks of the clock,” as Tyson says. With relativity, time became a more fluid concept, dependent on the observer.
Because of relativity, we learned that there is no “absolute time”.
“Time is relative, so time can be stretched, for me relative to you. So, time has multiple, sort of, parallel rates at which it flows, depending on the state of who's making the measurement and the state of who's in motion, and what conditions they are in,” said Tyson (0:53).
Tyson rather thinks of time as a dimension, calling us “prisoners of the present”. What he means is that we don’t have an ability to jump into the past or the future on our individual timelines. But what if we could do just that?
If time travel was feasible, we’d open ourselves up to some potentially mind-bending situations and logic puzzles.
“Suppose you could move around in your timeline with the same flexibility as moving left and right, up and down, forward and backward. If that's the case you can revisit your own timeline. Under those conditions you do not die. You are always dying. You are not born. You're always being born. That's another kind of interesting way to think about time,” explained Tyson (1:34).
Some classic time paradoxes come out of this thinking. They revolve around the changes that can be imagined by suddenly being able to go back and forth in time.
If you jumped into the future, would you then know and remember everything that would have happened to you had you stayed in your original timeline and let events take place naturally?
And if your timeline already exists, could you change your fate by changing aspects of your future, if you managed to travel to it, like in the classic sci-fi movie franchise “Terminator”.
Neil deGrasse Tyson, astrophysicist, 'Cosmos' television show host and Frederick P. Rose Director of the Hayden Planetarium at the American Museum of Natural History speaks August 4, 2014 after a screening of James Cameron's 'Deepsea Challenge 3D' film at the museum in New York. (Photo credit: STAN HONDA/AFP/Getty Images)
Tyson hypothesizes that maybe you could alter your timeline, creating a new one as part of a “very complex, sort of, fractal structure”. And if this was possible, Tyson really doesn’t agree with some of the unnecessarily complicated plot choices of the "Terminator":
“So, what gets me about Terminator is he's got to kill everybody who might be the mother of the future of the person who overthrows the thing… You can go further back [in time] just have one little thing change and everything after that would change.”
In an example of another strange conundrum, Tyson also explores the idea of a particle that is never created nor destroyed and only exists in a time loop, a concept called “the Bootstrap Paradox”. In the time-travel movie “Somewhere in Time”, this “self-created” object was a locket which the lead character received as a gift from an old woman who told him to meet her back in time. He figures out how to go back in time, meets her when she's young and gifts her the same locket that she gave him back in the future. Once he did that, the origin of the object became uncertain and it got trapped in the time loop.
Another potentially big player in time travel - the infamous Butterfly Effect. It's a concept from chaos theory which basically says that small initial causes can create large ripple effects. If you were time traveling, could you too easily change the course of history?
Tyson isn’t so sure that if you, let’s say, go back and kill baby Hitler that you’d really change anything.
“You pivot everything on this one thing and tell me that all of civilization will be different. I'm not buying it. Civilization is more robust than that. And if Hitler were killed as a child, then no, maybe not - the Germans were ripe to have somebody rise up and take control of their psyche. And maybe the circumstances made Hitler - not Hitler making the circumstances,” pointed out Tyson (10:27).
In the end, Tyson doesn’t believe that travel back in time is possible, agreeing on that with Stephen Hawking. He thinks that at some point, physicists will discover a new law that will explain what prevents backwards time travel, adding “we don't know what that law is or why it must exist but everything we can imagine that allows it totally messes everything up.”
While this is still just a hypothetical discussion, Tyson sees definite value in speculating about time travel. On the other hand, he takes comfort in living a “fixed” life in a linear timeline, adding his opinion of free will:
“If it is being a prisoner of the present transitioning from the past to the future, I have the illusion of free will. And I'm happy to live in that illusion in the knowledge that I don’t.” (13:15)
Watch the whole interview here:
What is human dignity? Here's a primer, told through 200 years of great essays, lectures, and novels.
- Human dignity means that each of our lives have an unimpeachable value simply because we are human, and therefore we are deserving of a baseline level of respect.
- That baseline requires more than the absence of violence, discrimination, and authoritarianism. It means giving individuals the freedom to pursue their own happiness and purpose.
- We look at incredible writings from the last 200 years that illustrate the push for human dignity in regards to slavery, equality, communism, free speech and education.
The inherent worth of all human beings<p>Human dignity is the inherent worth of each individual human being. Recognizing human dignity means respecting human beings' special value—value that sets us apart from other animals; value that is intrinsic and cannot be lost.</p> <p>Liberalism—the broad political philosophy that organizes society around liberty, justice, and equality—is rooted in the idea of human dignity. Liberalism assumes each of our lives, plans, and preferences have some unimpeachable value, not because of any objective evaluation or contribution to a greater good, but simply because they belong to a human being. We are human, and therefore deserving of a baseline level of respect. </p> <p>Because so many of us take human dignity for granted—just a fact of our humanness—it's usually only when someone's dignity is ignored or violated that we feel compelled to talk about it. </p> <p>But human dignity means more than the absence of violence, discrimination, and authoritarianism. It means giving individuals the freedom to pursue their own happiness and purpose—a freedom that can be hampered by restrictive social institutions or the tyranny of the majority. The liberal ideal of the good society is not just peaceful but also pluralistic: It is a society in which we respect others' right to think and live differently than we do.</p>
From the 19th century to today<p>With <a href="https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?year_start=1800&year_end=2019&content=human+dignity&corpus=26&smoothing=3&direct_url=t1%3B%2Chuman%20dignity%3B%2Cc0" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Google Books Ngram Viewer</a>, we can chart mentions of human dignity from 1800-2019.</p><img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yNDg0ODU0My9vcmlnaW4ucG5nIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTY1MTUwMzE4MX0.bu0D_0uQuyNLyJjfRESNhu7twkJ5nxu8pQtfa1w3hZs/img.png?width=980" id="7ef38" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="9974c7bef3812fcb36858f325889e3c6" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" />
American novelist, writer, playwright, poet, essayist and civil rights activist James Baldwin at his home in Saint-Paul-de-Vence, southern France, on November 6, 1979.
Credit: Ralph Gatti/AFP via Getty Images
The future of dignity<p>Around the world, people are still working toward the full and equal recognition of human dignity. Every year, new speeches and writings help us understand what dignity is—not only what it looks like when dignity is violated but also what it looks like when dignity is honored. In his posthumous essay, Congressman Lewis wrote, "When historians pick up their pens to write the story of the 21st century, let them say that it was your generation who laid down the heavy burdens of hate at last and that peace finally triumphed over violence, aggression and war."</p> <p>The more we talk about human dignity, the better we understand it. And the sooner we can make progress toward a shared vision of peace, freedom, and mutual respect for all. </p>
With just a few strategical tweaks, the Nazis could have won one of World War II's most decisive battles.
- The Battle of Britain is widely recognized as one of the most significant battles that occurred during World War II. It marked the first major victory of the Allied forces and shifted the tide of the war.
- Historians, however, have long debated the deciding factor in the British victory and German defeat.
- A new mathematical model took into account numerous alternative tactics that the German's could have made and found that just two tweaks stood between them and victory over Britain.
Two strategic blunders<p>Now, historians and mathematicians from York St. John University have collaborated to produce <a href="http://www-users.york.ac.uk/~nm15/bootstrapBoB%20AAMS.docx" target="_blank">a statistical model (docx download)</a> capable of calculating what the likely outcomes of the Battle of Britain would have been had the circumstances been different. </p><p>Would the German war effort have fared better had they not bombed Britain at all? What if Hitler had begun his bombing campaign earlier, even by just a few weeks? What if they had focused their targets on RAF airfields for the entire course of the battle? Using a statistical technique called weighted bootstrapping, the researchers studied these and other alternatives.</p><p>"The weighted bootstrap technique allowed us to model alternative campaigns in which the Luftwaffe prolongs or contracts the different phases of the battle and varies its targets," said co-author Dr. Jaime Wood in a <a href="https://www.york.ac.uk/news-and-events/news/2020/research/mathematicians-battle-britain-what-if-scenarios/" target="_blank">statement</a>. Based on the different strategic decisions that the German forces could have made, the researchers' model enabled them to predict the likelihood that the events of a given day of fighting would or would not occur.</p><p>"The Luftwaffe would only have been able to make the necessary bases in France available to launch an air attack on Britain in June at the earliest, so our alternative campaign brings forward the air campaign by three weeks," continued Wood. "We tested the impact of this and the other counterfactuals by varying the probabilities with which we choose individual days."</p><p>Ultimately, two strategic tweaks shifted the odds significantly towards the Germans' favor. Had the German forces started their campaign earlier in the year and had they consistently targeted RAF airfields, an Allied victory would have been extremely unlikely.</p><p>Say the odds of a British victory in the real-world Battle of Britain stood at 50-50 (there's no real way of knowing what the actual odds are, so we'll just have to select an arbitrary figure). If this were the case, changing the start date of the campaign and focusing only on airfields would have reduced British chances at victory to just 10 percent. Even if a British victory stood at 98 percent, these changes would have cut them down to just 34 percent.</p>
A tool for understanding history<p>This technique, said co-author Niall Mackay, "demonstrates just how finely-balanced the outcomes of some of the biggest moments of history were. Even when we use the actual days' events of the battle, make a small change of timing or emphasis to the arrangement of those days and things might have turned out very differently."</p><p>The researchers also claimed that their technique could be applied to other uncertain historical events. "Weighted bootstrapping can provide a natural and intuitive tool for historians to investigate unrealized possibilities, informing historical controversies and debates," said Mackay.</p><p>Using this technique, researchers can evaluate other what-ifs and gain insight into how differently influential events could have turned out if only the slightest things had changed. For now, at least, we can all be thankful that Hitler underestimated Britain's grit.</p>
A new study shows our planet is much closer to the supermassive black hole at the galaxy's center than previously estimated.
Arrows on this map show position and velocity data for the 224 objects utilized to model the Milky Way Galaxy. The solid black lines point to the positions of the spiral arms of the Galaxy. Colors reflect groups of objects that are part of the same arm, while the background is a simulation image.
Apple sold its first iPod in 2001, and six years later it introduced the iPhone, which ushered in a new era of personal technology.