In refutation of Tim's argument below I quote Igor Novikov. Of course one must read Novikov to get all the details properly.
In reference to Tim's "paradoxes" below:
"Does this paradox demonstrate that time travel [to the past] is impossible? Not at all. The reason is that in our discussion of the paradox [same as Tim's below] I committed a serious logical error. I discussed the situation twice, in two different ways. In the first discussion, I discussed my journey to mouth B assuming there was no meeting with the older version of myself from the future. In the second discussion. I discussed the same journey but assumed that the first discussion was correct and that therefore I could travel back in time and that therefore I could travel back in time and that therefore there was a meeting. The error is the assumption in the first discussion that there was no meeting. If the meeting happened, it happened. So we should take into account the consequences of the meeting from the very beginning. Therefore, even if I am not killed, when I travel into mouth B, then I will remember the meeting with my younger self when I come out of mouth A. So what actually happens ... We see now that there are no contradictions or paradoxes ... Events can be influenced by other events in the future, as well as other events in the past ... however there is only one flow of events, so the past cannot be changed once it has occurred ... in the presence of time machines we have very strange and unusual physical processes taking place, but no contradictions. ... This means that our free will must be constrained. If I meet with a younger version of myself and wish to kill that younger version, then the laws of physics will prevent me from doing so."
Star Gates and Time Travel to The Past (from my 4th book "Star Gate")
The words “Star Gate” and “wormhole” mean the same thing in this book. More precisely I mean “traversable wormholes” without any black hole event horizons. These star gates require anti-gravitating “dark energy” to keep them stable and open. Since our universe is about 73% dark energy on the large scale there is plenty around. Any ETs (Extra-Terrestrials) visiting Earth in their flying saucers are able to do so because they know how to manufacture and also use naturally occurring wormholes that may have been created in the early universe and are time travel machines to the past Stephen Hawking’s “chronology protection conjecture” noted but dismissed because of the facts. Are time machines are dangerous weapons of mass destruction in the wrong hands?
“If someone could travel from our time back into the past, then that person could probably change the past. If so, as a result, he would change all of subsequent history. For example, a person who travels back in time to the beginning of the universe could change the physical conditions at that period, and as a result change the whole history of the universe. The explosion of a hydrogen bomb is nothing compared to such a possibility.” Moscow physicist Igor Novikov at Cal Tech Kipfest 2000.[i]
However, we do not have to worry about changing the past. Novikov proves that is based on faulty logic and that in every case a strange but self-consistent global loop in time happens. We do not have absolute free will to violate the laws of nature. It may be our free will to fly if we walk off a cliff, but we will fall. Similarly, you may go back in time and attempt to make a paradox, but you will fail to do so. Simple models of a billiard ball going back in time to collide with its younger self have consistent histories. If there is a collision it will be a very weak glancing collision that will allow the ball to pass through the wormhole time machine. If the ball is a bomb that explodes at least one fragment from the explosion will go through the time machine to make the ball explode in the first place. If it happens it happens. If you go back in time to meet your younger self you will remember meeting your younger self as you enter the time machine and you will not be able to prevent yourself from doing so. Jean Cocteau’s film “The Last Testament of Orphee” dramatizes this idea as does the film “La Jetee” and “Twelve Monkeys” as well as “The Terminator” series with Arnold. Here the science fiction is actually good physics.
[i] “The Future of Spacetime” ed. Richard Price, p. 58, W.W. Norton (2002)
On Nov 29, 2005, at 4:17 PM, Cassidy-Curtis Timothy G GS-13 30 RMS/RMR wrote:
Well, the math is going to send me back to school, of this I have no
doubt! However, please let me suggest a couple of intriguing thoughts.
Time travel, itself, presents well known paradoxes; Dr. Mallet, himself,
acknowledges and has suggested ways to avoid.
No, this is a Red Herring. It's simply not true at all. The refutation of what you just wrote is in "Can we change the past?" by Professor Igor Novikov given at the Cal Tech Kipfest 2000 printed in "The Future of Spacetime" 2002 California Institute of Technology ISBN 0-393-32446-X-pbk pp 57-86.
The notion of such autocidal paradoxes is based of faulty logic and actual physics calculations show that such arguments are not correct.
We are all familiar with
it, but I describe the paradoxes as Time Loop and Grandfather Paradoxes;
I actually express them in terms of logical argument.
You are simply wrong. If you read Novikov's simple article you will see why. :-)
Paradox is the well known situation in which one eliminates one's own
cause, and the Time Loop Paradox is where one multiplies an existing
cause (thus creating numerous copies of a result). The logical
expression is the Clarity Principal of Logic, where P must imply P and
NotP must imply NotP. In both cases, P implies NotP (thus violating the
principal); the Grandfather Paradox creates an implication of P implies
Zero and the Time Loop Paradox implies P implies MultipleP (which is a
form of NotP). It has been pointed out that identification of paradox
is tantamount to establishing impossibility.
So, that said, what if we were to see if there were any way to
accomplish Time Travel without invoking Paradox? Dr. Mallet makes an
attempt to do so by suggesting that Time Travel cannot happen prior to
when Time Travel becomes possible. (Actually, Dr. Carl Sagan made the
same constraint in a PBS-broadcast NOVA interview, some years earlier).
It's a game suggestion, alright, but when I thought about it what I
concluded was that it just didn't cut it. So, I tried to see if I could
What I came up with were two constraints:
1. A time traveler cannot travel to any time in which he has actually
2. A time traveler cannot be able to interact with himself while inside
an energized time travel field (but cannot, in any case, violate #1,
I also construe a time travel field as being a sort of event-horizon
that effectively creates a condition of non-existence between the inside
of the field and the rest of the Universe. It essentially decouples
actions inside the field from outside the field, kind of the same way a
worm-hole decouples intervening space from the end-points.
Again read Novikov. Hawking has a paper after his, but not based upon the kind of
argument you make here. :-)
Now, as you look at my constraints, it's quite possible to say that I've
constrained myself out of time travel. How is it possible to exist
during a time when you do not exist (constraint 1)? You can't. Oh,
wait, but that's the static case.
Now, let's consider the Relativistic case. The Lorentz equation tells
us that there is a T-prime that is different for travelers at
relativistic velocities which is different from the T of the
non-traveling reference case. T-prime is always less than T, and this
is very significant at speeds near C. So, what if, while traveling at
relativistic velocities, you are also inside your time travel field
(effectively traveling along the closed time-like curve and effectively
travel backwards in time)? Consider the time of T minus T-Prime. What
if your time field absolutely, always, and consistently, appeared to
deliver you from time T, (which is what an outside observer would say is
the time you took to travel the distance, and cannot be any smaller than
C/distance traveled) to T minus T-prime (which is the time you think you
spent during your travels due to dilation)? In fact, what if, while
traveling inside your time travel field, you actually never reach time
T, but are always deposited at T minus T-prime; it would somehow be a
function of this type of time travel that T minus T-prime would always
be the result, so no matter what you do, after accelerating up to
relativistic velocity, and turning on your time travel field, the only
point you come out at is a point in time that's T minus T-prime, and
nowhere else? If no other time is possible than T minus T-prime, than
both of my constraints (above) would be satisfied, and paradox is
Well, after looking at this train of logic, I began to wonder if any of
the EFE solutions would favor or result in either T-prime, or T minus
T-prime. That is why Mallet's Time Machine Proposal is so intriguing to
You see, guys, if the math works out, than it may not be as much as time
travel that's been discovered it. It's FTL.
I wrote a paper, and submitted it to the Journal of the British
Interplanetary Society. I am attaching both my paper and the JBIS
response. Needless to say, they did not want to publish it as it was,
but I think their response was kind of intriguing. Looks like if the
math can be worked, it may be a winner. If anybody thinks of a way, I
would be ecstatic about it.
- Tim "C-Squared" Cassidy-Curtis, Solar System Ambassador
From: Jack Sarfatti [mailto:email@example.com]
Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2005 2:27 PM
To: Dr. Eric Davis
Cc: Cassidy-Curtis Timothy G GS-13 30 RMS/RMR; Creon Levit; Ron
Pandolfi; alan parker; Dan Smith; S-P Sirag; firstname.lastname@example.org; David M
Mcmahon; Tony Smith; Mark Pesses
Subject: Re: Ronald Mallett's Time Machine Proposal
Thanks Eric. What's the bottom line here in your opinion? I mean in
terms of a practical device with this approach. I will look also when I
On Nov 29, 2005, at 12:45 PM, Dr. Eric Davis wrote:
Here are the relevant references that you require per the below post.
I also attached Scully's paper because Mallett references it in his
papers and it is of relevance to the question that Mallett is
addressing in his time machine proposal.
I talked to Mallett three years ago and obtained other material which
is not available for public release.
Eric W. Davis, Ph.D., FBIS
Inst. for Advanced Studies at Austin
4030 W. Braker Lane, Suite 300
Austin, TX 78759
From: "Cassidy-Curtis Timothy G GS-13 30 RMS/RMR"
To: "Jack Sarfatti"
CC: "Creon Levit"
Subject: RE: Ronald Mallett's Time Machine Proposal
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2005 12:02:53 -0800
OK. After sending, I did a bit of digging. You may find the
following of interest.
"The Gravitational Field of a Circulating Light Beam" Ronald
Mallett, PhD, Dept. of Physics, UConn Foundations of Physics [Jnl]
Volume 33, Number 9 September 2003
(Publisher: Springer Science+Business Media B.V, Formerly Kluwer
Academic Publishers B.V.)
Abstract: Exact solutions of the Einstein field equations are found
for the exterior and interior gravitational field of an infinitely
long circulating cylinder of light. The exterior metric is shown to
contain closed time like lines.
If you can obtain this paper, you may be able to make your own
determinations. The only possible objection I can think of is that
it explicitly refers to an "infinitely long circulating cylinder of
If subsequently constrained to a cylinder of light that is if finite
length the premise may break down...or not. Long ago I learned to be
cautious when applying infinite cases to finite geometries. If it
stands up to a finite geometry, then this could be even more
At any rate, there it is. I have not obtained this paper yet.
From: Jack Sarfatti [mailto:email@example.com]
Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2005 11:49 AM
To: Cassidy-Curtis Timothy G GS-13 30 RMS/RMR
Cc: Creon Levit; Ron Pandolfi; alan parker; Dan Smith; S-P Sirag;
firstname.lastname@example.org; Eric Davis
Subject: Re: Ronald Mallett's Time Machine Proposal
I am not familiar with his work. :-)