So what about time travel?

Phan Thu Hà
(haphanthu)

Administrator
There is a long tradition of time travel in science fiction, going back to H.G.Wells's The Time Machine in 1895. As a kid, I was fascinated by these stories. Let me tell you about a fantasy experiment I thought about back then involving a machine that could send something (a marble, say) backward in time. I imagined a desk with two buttons and a place where the marble would appear after being sent back fifteen minutes; the other would blow up both the machine and the marble. I tried to imagine what it would be like to sit at that desk and see the marble from the future pop into existence. It would be like a game of "gotcha" with the universe. If the marble didn't show up from the future, you could press the button to send it, and if it did show up you could blow up the machine and not send it. Either way, it would be a clear victory of human free will over the impersonal laws of the universe.

You run into all sorts of paradoxes when you talk about time travel. Perhaps the most famous is the "grandfather paradox," which involves someone who goes back in time and prevents the marriage of his grandfather. If he did this, of course, he couldn't have been born, in which case he couldn't have gone back in time, in which case his grandfather would have married, in which case he would have been born and… you got the idea. It was, perhaps, thinking about such paradoxes that let Stephen Hawking to propose something called the "Chronology Protection Conjecture," which says, in essence, that there will always be a reason why time travel cannot take place. As a scientific idea, time travel is a little like parallel universes. It occasionally surfaces as an unexpected consequence of some theory and is announced with great fanfare, but (so far, at least) when people look into it more closely they find a factor that hasn't been considered that will keep it from happening.

I was fortunate, I suppose, because I got involved in one of these episodes early in my career and thereby acquired a kind of immunity. In the early 1970s, physicists were talking about a hypothetical partical, called the tachyon, that could travel faster than light. It turns out that if such particles exist (and so far no one has any evidence that they do), then it would be possibleto play some games with tachyons moving near the speed of light (you really don't want to know all the details) that would have the effect of sending messages into the past. This would lead to the grandfather paradox as easily as sending a person back in time--after all, the message "My God, don't marry that woman!" would start the paradox in motion as well as anything else. In this case, a student and I were able to show that the problem of distinguishing between tachyons sent on purpose and background cosmic ray tachyons would actually prevent any meaningful message from being sent by this scheme.

More recently, conjectures about time travel have concerned the massive objects called black holes, which have the effect of warping the fabric of space in their vicinity. General relativity tells us that space and time are linked (hence the term "space-time"), so distorting space also distorts time. In some cases, it is possible to find a path along which a spaceship could travel that would, in effect, bring it back to its starting point before it left.

One popular recent version of this scheme involved something called a "wormhole." Familiar too Star Trek aficionados, a wormhole is a hypothetical connection between two black holes--think of it as a tunnel through another dimension. The scheme involved bending the wormhole around so that the two ends were near each other, then accelerating one black hole to near the speed of light. This would have the effect of distorting time in the region and would allow a spaceship to travel "downwhen" (to use a wonderful term coined by Isaac Asimov into its own past).

Unfortunately, when people began looking into this idea in more detail, it turned out that the situation wasn't so simple (although accelerating black holes to the speed of light isn't something most people would call "simple"). It turns out that the massive energy necessary to distort space around an accelerating black hole would disrupt the vacuum in the region and, in effect, destroy the wormhole. In other words, the "tunnel" from one black hole to another would be destroyed as soon as it was built.

Can I guarantee that every time-travel scheme will meet a similar fate? Of course not--you can never tell what future scientifuc theories will look like. I harbor a fond hope, for example, that human beings will find some way to circumvent the speed-of-light barrier and break out into the galaxy. I harbor no such hopes for time travel, however, despite the hours of pleasure I have derived from reading fiction devoted to it. Perhaps the most convincing argument supporting this point of view comes from Stephen Hawking. If time travel is possible, he argues, then surely a future civilization will figure out how to accomplish it.

So, he asks, "When are all the tourists from the future?"
 
How old is the universe?

In 1929 the American astronomer Edwin Hubble forever changed our view of the universe. Using the then state-of-the-art telescope on Mount Wilson, near Los Angeles, he proved that (1) stars in the universe are clumped into galaxies, and (2) the galaxies are moving away from each other. He discovered, in other words, that the universe is expanding.

From this discovery it is a short jump to the idea of the Big Bang, the notion that the universe began at a specific time in the past and therefore has a specific age. (Think about the current expansion and imagine running the film backward until everything shrinks down to a single point.) A little-known historical sidelight of Hubble's original work is that his first value for this age was a mere 2 billion years. From the early 1930s until 1956 (when, as discussed below, an inconsistency in the original measurement was cleaned up), the age of the universe was officially about half that of planet Earth! I mention this historical anomaly because today, thanks to results from the orbiting telescope named after Hubble, a very similar situation seems to be developing.

First a word about finding the age of the universe. For each galaxy out there, you have to know two things: how fast it's moving away from us and how far it is. The actual calculations are analogous to (but slightly more complicated than) the problem of knowing a car is traveling twenty miles per hour and is sixty miles away, from which you can deduce that the trip started three hours ago.

Measuring the speed of a galaxy is easy. You look at the light coming from an atom in that galaxy and see if it has the same wavelength as light emitted by the same kind of atom in your labaratory. If the light from the galaxy has a longer wavelength (and thus is redder), the source must have shifted between the time of emission of one crest and the next. Measuring that shift and dividing by the time between pulses gives the speed of the atom and of the galaxy it is part of.

It's not finding the speed of the galaxy, then, but finding the distance to it that has been (and continues to be) the main problem with discovering the age of the universe. Looking at a distant galaxy is like looking at a light bulb in a totally darkened room--you can never tell if you're seeing something bright and far away or dim and very close.

The way astronomers have always attacked this problem has been by finding a "standard candle," something whose total output of energy is known. The idea is that if you know how much energy the object emits and measure how much you actually receive, you can calculate the distance to it. in the analogy of the darkened room, a 100-watt light bulb would be a standard candle--if it looked faint, you would know it was far away, if it looked bright it would be close.

Historically, the most important standard candle in astronomy has been a type of star called a Cepheid, variable (the name derives from the constellation Cephus, where the first such star was seen). These stars go through a regular cycle of brightening and dimming that lasts several weeks or months, and the length of the cycle is related to the total energy that the star radiates into space. Measuring the cycle time of a Cepheid, then, is equivalent to reading the wattage rating of the light bulb in our example.

It was Hubble's ability to see individual Cepheid variables in nearby galaxies that made possible his discovery that the universe is expanding. It was the discovery in 1956 of two different kinds of Cepheids (which Hubble had mixed together) that later made the estimated age of the universe older than the age of the earth. Up to 1994, we didn't have technique powerful enough to allow us to see individual stars in clusters of galaxies more than about 50 million light years away, which meant that indirect estimates had to be used for distances of the age of the universe ranged from 7 to 20 billion years.

In 1994, two groups of astronomers (one operating from the ground with advanced electronic systems, the other using the Hubble Space Telescope) finally isolated some of these stars and determined that exact distance to a group of galaxies called the Virgo Cluster. The results of their measurement: the universe is between 8 and 12 billion years old.

There's still a lot of controversy about these numbers, so don't be surprised if other scientists come up with older ages in the next few years. If the age range stands, however, it is going to shake up a lot of our ideas about how the universe works. The most pressing problem is that astronomers who work on the life cycles of stars tell us that large numbers of stars in the universe are between 12 and 16 billion years old. My own guess is that we're in for a reply of history, that we will find it necessary to raise the age of the universe. If it turns out that that can't be done, then the whole Big Bang picture of the universe may have to be reexamined.

What fun!
 
Chi Ha oi sao chi khong post bai nay bang tieng Viet hay tieng Nga cho no de hieu huh chi ? Nhin toan tieng Anh the nay ngai qua di mat thoi! Uhm..
 
Back
Bên trên