Capcanele timpului.

Conditiile intoarcerii in timp si patrunderii in viitor Ipoteze

Capcanele timpului

Daca nu vrem sa ne jucam noi cu timpul fizic, se joaca el cu noi.Un exemplu ar fi in episodul "Capcanele timpului" din Star Trek.Studierea detailata a fenomenelor care se petrec extrem de rapid (de exemplu o explozie) ar putea fi posibila prin oprirea timpului, derularea lui in sens invers apoi in sens direct dar cu viteza mai mica in functie de optiunile operatorului. Crearea unui timp artificial permite persoanelor implicate inb activitati periculoase pentru viata sa elimine orice risc.Chiar daca de exemplu se va intampla ceva, toate evenimentele s-ar desfasura intr-un timp artificial controlat efectiv de om; subiectul in cauza ar ramane blocat in timpul sau natural pentru o perioada finita, determinata.In acest fel notiunea de fantoma ar capata alta sensuri, de exemplu fantoma poate fi acea persoana care, traind intr-un timp propriu artificial ar patrunde in timpul natural din jurul altor persoane pentru care ea le este fantoma. Cele mai senzationale evenimente din secolele urmatoare ar avea la baza capcanele timpului. Oprirea fatala a timpului natural ar putea prelungi o clipa ( egala cu durata de timp dezvoltata de o particula cuanta de timp )la infinit prin oprirea consecutiva a timpului imbricat ( clipe imbricate una in alta ).Daca timpul ar fi format din particule atunci ar exista si antiparticule corespunzatoare.Ce s-ar intampla atunci la intalnirea dintre un cronon cu un anticronon ?

Dan Mihaiu, 1999

Conditiile intoarcerii in timp si patrunderii in viitor Ipoteze

Posibilitatile de control asupra fenomenului de "curgere" al timpului sunt aproape nule pentru locuitorii deceniului 200. Motivul este simplu: cu actualele mijloace de cercetare nu putem stabili exact natura timpului fizic.

Elementele chimice sunt formate din atomi,substanta este formata din molecule, lumina din fotoni, atomul este format din particule elementare, protonul este format din cuarci, la fel si neitronul, toata materia este formata din particule elementare.Lumina fizica face parte din materie, atunci de ce nu putem considera timpul ca "ceva" fizic, o forma de existenta fizica ?. Am ajuns sa descoperim ca si campul magnetic este format din particule fizice - gravitonii.Orice camp de interactiune (electromagnetic de exemplu) este format din particule fizice elementare. Deci orice forma de existenta din spatiul fizic este format din particule fizice care au proprietatea necesara ca "exista".Se poate considera ca si vidul absolut sa fie de fapt "eter" daca acest vid e ceva care "exista" si ocupa geometric un volum din spatiul fizic.Stiinta din Star Trek accepta existenta subspatiului si se pare ca in viitorul indepartat vom putea patrunde in "infinit" - infinitul fizic, fie el si mare (daca acceptam infinitul mic - lumea particulelor elementare iar infinitul mare lumea galaxiilor). Putem presupune timpul ca format din particule fizice temporare (!) numite crononi masurate doar pe o singura dimensiune si anume a 4-a dimensiune a spatiului - axa timpului.Crononului ii putem atribui valori numerice exprimate fizic in atosecunde (fematosecunde, picosecunde, nanosecunde...) sau in submultiplii mai mici ai

secundei. Daca timpul este o singura dimensiune atunci el nu prea poate fi "localizat" in spatiul tridimensional. Referitor la ultima teorie, adica timpul este un sistem real care exista de la inceput pana la sfarsit, sau in totalitate in intregime in universul fizic,se pot face unele comentarii. Daca timpul exista in intregime atunci exista un inceput si un sfarsit al lui. Deci fiecare moment exista in acelasi timp cu celelalte. De exemplu daca presupunem ca astazi incepe constructia unei nava spatiale, tot astazi noi putem faca in asa fel astfel incat sa vedem nava terminata; adica ne-am putea transfera in alt timp, undeva in viitor ( dar in acelasi intreg temporal ) unde am vedea nava terminata. Daca am avea posibilitatea sa ne transferam dintr-un timp in altul, atunci am putea alege sa ne traim viata numai in anii care ne par favorabili la infinit !!!. Odata iesiti din timpul curent, si plasati in alte coordonate temporale, nu ne-am mai putea reintoarce in acel timp curent. Presupunem ca trecutul, timpul curent si viitorul sunt formatiuni temporare independente.Atunci este posibila patrunderea in trecut, dar ca simpli spectatori, neputand schimba nimic din cursul evenimentelor, iar civilizatiile trecutului nu near putea detecta. Patrunderea in viitor ar putea fi imposibila deoarece, inchipuitiva ca undeva in viitor evenimente negative, ca de exemplu catastrofe sau razboaie ce pot fi prevenite astfel incat ele sa nu mai aiba loc deci ar fi usor pentru noi din tinpul curent sa prevenim acele evenimente nefavorabile, si deci evenimentele viitorului nu ar mai exista deoarece noi le-am schimbat , adica ceea ce am vazut noi ar fi imagini false ale viitorului ! Daca am fi spectatori inumani inactivi si ireali am putea probabil sa cercetam intregul temporal dar atunci ar trebui mai intai sa detectam timpul curent sau prezentul si apoi sa cercetam trecutul si viitorul fara sa putem modifica ceva in prezent. In unele episoade din Star Trek se vorbeste despre transferuri temporale, timp auxiliar, deci ideea pare realizabila deoarece se poate explica stiintific. Dan Mihaiu, 1999

Entropie, Timp si Relativitate Am perceput de multe ori entropia ca grad de dezordine a materiei. Un eveniment este calificat drept entropic, haotic, in momentul in care devine imprevizibil, putind urma un

numar mare de variante evolutive. Daca timpul si spatiul sunt interschimbabile asa cum postuleaza indirect Teoria Relativitatii, pentru ca timpul este intr-adevar a patra dimensiune a universului cunoscut/observabil, pentru ca timpul formeaza cu materia (spatiul) un continuum - cel spatio-temporal - avem tot dreptul sa afirmam ca timpul insusi poate "imprumuta" o parte din calitatile materiei, cum ar fi spre exemplu entropia... Timpul este indisociabil de materie, deci un fenomen care afecteaza materia ar trebui sa afecteze si timpul. Cum s-ar manifesta insa aceasta "entropie temporala",in contextul "curgerii" timpului ? Poate ea sa afecteze curgerea sa pina acum pereceputa drept imuabila ? Virsta pe care omul biblic o putea atinge scade odata cu indepartarea de prima fiinta umana, scadere pusa pe seama pierderii "perfectiunii" si credintei. Din nou, se poate presupune ca acest amanunt nu are absolut nici o legatura cu entropia sau cu timpul de orice fel, ci este fie doar o alta nascocire a credintei oarbe, fie o consecinta reala a vietii "moderne", a poluarii progresive si a stressului. Omul a fost nevoit pe parcursul evolutiei sale sa proceseze din ce in ce mai multa informatie, si este foarte probabil ca tocmai aceasta sa ii fi scurtat considerabil viata fizica. Este cunoscut faptul ca geniile isi "platesc" capacitatile intelectuale deosebite cu un numar mai mare sau mai mic de ani din viata. Sa existe oare o relatie reala de invers-proportionalitate intre durata existentei umane si cantitatea de informatie prelucrata ? Si totusi... Istoria vietii, si indirect, a omului, incepe acum 4 milioane de ani, si, cu toate ca aceasta cifra apare drept infima raportata la eonii cosmici, poate ca a fost caracterizata de o variatie a entropiei. Odata cu cresterea entropiei materiale, este afectata oare curgerea timpului ? In acest caz, in momentul de moarte termica a universului, cind orice miscare va inceta odata cu orice transfer de energie, va inceta probabil cu desavirsire si ceea ce putem numi "curgere temporala". Din aceeasi afirmatie deriva si o alta concluzie. De nenumarate ori s-a pus problema evolutiei suspect de rapide a vietii pe Pamint. Poate ca raspunsul se afla in aceasta teorie; poate ca estimarile noastre cu privire la vechimea universului si a inceputurilor vietii sunt eronate. Timpul este relativ, in sensul in care timpul "nostru" (respectiv ritmurile impuse drept repere incontestabile, ca variatiile circadiene sau miscarea de revolutie a Pamintului) poate fi diferit de la o perioada la alta din punct de vedere al, sa spunem, "vitezei de curgere" (fara a cadea in capcana teoriei substantialiste). Intrebarea care se pune e urmatoarea: este momentul de inceput al vietii suficient de departe in timp, pentru a corespunde unei entropii suficient de mici care, la rindul sau sa determine o curgere a timpului suficient de rapida ? Cum se "impaca" notiunea de entropie a timpului cu teoriile deja existente ? O demonstratie a acestei ipoteze se poate face pe baza unor obiecte ceresti inca enigmatice, bizare si de neinteles, pentru ca deseori intra in contradictie cu fizica bunuluisimt: singularitatile spatio-temporale, mai cunoscute sub numele de gauri negre. Teoria gaurilor negre presupune o cu totul alta perceptie a timpului si spatiului decit cea cu care suntem obisnuiti. In primul rind, densitatea unui astfel de obiect este enorma, in timp ce volumul sau tinde spre zero, iar distorsiunea pe care o provoaca in urzeala Cosmosului, cunoscuta sub denumirea de forta gravitationala, este enorma, suficienta pentru a avea efecte bizare asupra spatiului si timpului. Orice gaura meagra este caracterizata de o raza Schwartzschild, care delimiteaza o "sfera

magica". Odata ce materia a ajuns in interiorul acestei sfere magice, ea nu mai poate evada niciodata de sub influenta atractiei gravitationale, si pe masura ce se apropie de centru va fi supusa unui efect de maree, de interactiune gravitationala diferentiata, care o va spulbera in cele din urma pina la nefiinta. Presupunind prin absurd ca acel fragment de materie ar avea capacitatea de a masura timpul propriu, va ajunge la concluzia ca acesta tinde sa se opreasca. Daca in exteriorul unei gauri negre secunda urmatoare este inevitabila, in interior timpul inceteaza sa-si mai faca simtita prezenta fiind inlocuit de spatiu: inevitabilul este singularitatea, ea se afla acum in "viitorul spatial" al oricarei particule ce intra in sfera magica. Spatiul si Timpul isi inverseaza din acest punct de vedere rolurile. Ceea ce noi numim Big-Bang, explozia primordiala, a fost o astfel de singularitate, inversata insa (desi exista si voci care afirma imposibilitatea dezvelirii unei singularitati). Atunci, este evident faptul ca noi nu putem masura timpul din vechime, scurs de la inceput, pina acum, fara a cadea in capcana paradoxurilor temporale. "Viteza" sa de curgere era intr-adevar alta, si se modifica perpetuu pe masura ce materia, sau zona din univers in care ne aflam se indeparteaza mai mult de singularitate. Poate ca universul nostru s-a nascut ieri, sau poate ca virsta sa este intr-adevar infinita... Ambele variante pot fi in egala masura relative si corecte. Newton considera ca spatiul si timpul sunt independente de materie, ca ele reprezinta mediul de sine statator in care aceasta exista, asemenea vasului care contine apa. Pe de alta parte, conceptia relationista sustine ca timpul si spatiul nu au sens, nu exista fara materie, (Leibniz defineste timpul, spre exemplu, drept o succesiune de evenimente). Careia dintre cele doua conceptii i se poate incadra teoria de entropie a timpului ? Poate ca nici uneia, si poate ca amindurora. Spatiul si timpul, sau continuumul spatio-temporal, exista ca entitate (nu entitati, pentru ca formeaza un continuum !), insa materia le da sens. "Vasul" din teoria lui Newton exista, insa el este influentat de ceea ce se afla in interior, iar existenta sa, in aceasta forma, depinde de materie. Unificarea celor doua teorii, aparent opuse a fost data chiar de Teoria Relativitatii, care sustine ca in jurul maselor mari, care determina forte gravitationale puternice, continuumul cvadridimensional este curbat. Einstein considera chiar ca forta gravitationala nu reprezinta un tip elementar de interactiune, ci reprezinta de fapt doar acea curbura a spatio-timpului. Miscarea planetelor in jurul unui soare este deci cauzata de structura curba a continuumului, este o consecinta directa a acesteia. Pentru a recurge la un model, ne putem imagina spatiul ca o tesatura, o urzeala. Numai ca aceasta "tesatura" inglobeaza diferite corpuri, diferite forme de materie, care ii afecteaza structura initiala, uniforma. Configuratia spatio-timpului este determinata de materie; el poate exista si ca entitate autonoma, insa sensul sau dispare in absenta materiei, aflindu-se in aceeasi situatie cu Informatia, spre exemplu. Conceptia de timp si spatiu absolute pare deja a fi depasita. Probabil ca existenta fiecarei planete, fiecarui sistem inzestrat cu viata, deci cu observatori care ar putea percepe o diferenta, este individuala. Poate ca exista un numar de continuumuri spatio-temporale egal cu numarul observatorilor, adica cu cel al raselor inteligente din univers, care pot dezvolta o legatura interactiva cu a Cincea Dimensiune. Sa fie curgerea timpului mai "relativa" decit o preconiza teoria relativitatii ? Poate e o aberatie... Poate nu... Descoperirea tahionului, particula care ar calatori cu viteze mai mari decit cea a luminii, avind din aceasta cauza un statut special intre celelalte particule, a reprezentat o noua sursa de ipoteze, din domeniul paranormalului de duzina, pina la fizica teoretica

moderna. Pentru a putea accepta depasirea barierei vitezei luminii, trebuie sa putem pasi intr-un univers straniu, in care materia poate avea masa negativa, si unde timpul calatoreste invers. Am cedat tendintei de a percepe timpul drept o simpla conventie, raportat intrinsec la evenimentele din lumea materiala. Insa ne putem insela Oriunde exista o notiune, ne vom lovi automat si de simetrica sa, de imaginea sa in oglinda. In acest caz, notiunea care contrabalanseaza timpul ar putea fi... antitimpul. Un fizician american (M. Gott), preluind o mare parte din geometria lui Minkowski, a afirmat ca universul ar fi alcatuit de fapt din trei universuri paralele. Unul-cel care ne este cunoscut direct - apartinind materiei, cel de-al doilea - universul de antimaterie, si un al treilea care le inconjoara pe celelalte doua: universul tahionilor, al timpului. Cele trei universuri ar fi despartite de o singularitate spatio-temporala (o gaura neagra ?) care ar marca totodata si sensul de curgere a timpului in celelalte doua universuri. Iata deci conceptul de antitimp care incepe sa se contureze. Spre deosebire de foton, cu care tahionul prezinta unele similitudini (datorita vitezei sale, si faptului ca este propria antiparticula), natura tahionului rezulta probabil din sensul de curgere a timpului: intr-un univers al antimateriei, "sensul" timpului asa cum noi il cunoastem, va fi inversat, deci timpul va deveni antitimp. Imaginati-va o lume fatala prin cel mai mic contact cu universul nostru si in care timpul curge, conform naturii ei, in sens opus celui cunoscut noua: de la final la origini. Ceea ce desparte cunoscutul de necunoscut, materia de antimaterie, timpul de antitimp, este o singularitate. Timpul se scurgea in primele momente ale Universului altfel. Poate ca "miscarea" timpului nu este, nu a fost si nu va fi niciodata constanta din punct de vedere al ritmului, fapt imposibil de sesizat de fiinte limitate, subordonate unor simturi relative tocmai la mediul care se modifica in permanenta. Poate ca asemenea Universului, lumea noastra este in expansiune; distantele devin insesizabil din ce in ce mai mari, pina in momentul in care intreaga Terra se va destrama, odata cu moartea Universului. Credem ca Spatiul va lua sfirsit intr-o imensa explozie poate ca va muri, pur si simplu, in liniste. Suntem obisnuiti sa judecam trecutul si viitorul prin prisma prezentului; credem ca daca astazi rasare si apune soarele pentru a defini o noua zi, acelasi fenomen va avea loc si intr-un oarecare miine. Suntem niste fiinte relative la o lume relativa: ce poate fi mai incert ?

Why do the historical time arrow and the entropy time arrow point in the same direction?

Fig. 7.2. The laws of mechanics are time-reversible; yet the time-ordering of such a scene from right frame to the left is something that never is experienced, whereas that from the left to the right would be commonplace. All the successful equations of physics are symmetrical in time. They can be used equally well in one direction in time as in the other. The future and the past seem physically to be on a completely equal footing. Newton`s laws, Hamilton`s equation`s, Maxwell`s equations, Einstein`s general relativity, Dirac`s ecuations, the Schroedinger equationall remain effectively unaltered if we reserve the direction of time. (Replace the coordinate t which presents time, by t.) The whole of classical mechanics, is entirely reversible in time. (Roger Penrose) Dr. Breuer describes the same problem: My cup of coffee cools in the direction of the future and becomes hotter in the direction of the past. But the behaviour of heat is not reversible in time and characterizes according to the second law of thermodynamics a direction in time. That the coffee cools off ought to astound everyone. For ultimately according to classic mechanics the movement of each single particle of which the coffee consists is reversible in time.

At least it seems to be clearly the case that whatever physics is operating, it must have an essentially time-assymmetrical ingredient, i. e. it must make a distinction between the past and the future. Roger Penrose One can classify events in two different ways according to earlier and later. With the entropy time arrow or with the historical time arrow.

The entropy time arrow

The entropy time arrow distinguishes events as earlier and later according to the degree of entropy. The entropy of earlier is always less than the entropy of later.

The historical time arrow

The historical time arrow classifies events by documents. The past is known to us from documents, the present is known to us from experience, the future is unknown. All events in the past can be classified in this way according to earlier and later.

The information from earlier is a partial quantity of information from later. The information of the 1850 history book is a partial quantity of the information from the 1900 history book. In the 1950 history book there are events which are missing in the other two books (such as the First World War), since in 1850 and 1900 all later events were unknown. In this way, with the historical time arrow all events can be arranged according to earlier and later, since information from earlier is always a partial quantity of information from later. This is a strictly mathematical arrangement of the historical time arrow which has not

been violated in a single known instance. Definition: An event E1 at time t1 is earlier than another event E2 at time t2 if for all information I1 at time t1 and for all information I2 at time t2 the following applies:

The specific peculiarity of this temporal arrangement in distinction to spatial arrangement is its non-linearity. In contrast to space, it is not linear but hierarchical. Later documents not only document earlier events, but also earlier documents (which document even earlier documents). The usual designations apparent and subjective do not do justice to the historical time arrow. Optical illusions are apparent and ones own attributes (like taste) to a single person or to the human being. By contrast, the historical time arrow is made of the same tangible reality as the receptacle of Nautilus Pompilius. The latter is a direct event of its history and reflects it. The stages of development of Nautilus Pompilius and the historical time arrow: Nautilus Pompilius construction has been shaped by the historical time arrow: Information from earlier are a partial quantity of information from later. Nautilus Pompilius fully grown receptacle contains and documents all earlier stages of the receptacle and testifies to its historical development. The receptacle contains the memory of its past. Nature has a tangible memory of the past (but not of the future: We possess no fossils from the future). This tangible memory is the material basis for human-subjective memory and is what makes it possible in the first place. P C W Davies writes: In short, our experience is asymmetric because we are coupled to other asymmetries in our environment. Specifically, the accumulation of information, called memory when it resides in or brains, is but a typical example of the general accumulation of information

wich is taking place all around us in the universe (e.g. craters on the moon give information about its past history). Every macroscopic object not only has a history, every object is its history, it is the material incorporation of a past. A routine piece of blackboard chalk is a remnant of an animal skeleton which the earths forces have lifted to the surface so that it became a part of chalk cliffs. Then it was broken off and processed and now it is being used in order to write something on the blackboard and thus to transmit ideas. The different of past, present and future is an objective physical property of nature!

What Is Time? One Physicist Hunts for the Ultimate Theory

By Erin Biba February 26, 2010 | 5:30 am | Categories: Physics

SAN DIEGO One way to get noticed as a scientist is to tackle a really difficult problem. Physicist Sean Carroll has become a bit of a rock star in geek circles by attempting to answer an age-old question no scientist has been able to fully explain: What is time?

Sean Carroll is a theoretical physicist at Caltech where he focuses on theories of cosmology, field theory and gravitation by studying the evolution of the universe. Carrolls latest book, From Eternity to Here: The Quest for the Ultimate Theory of Time, is an attempt to bring his theory of time and the universe to physicists and nonphysicists alike.

Here at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, where he gave a presentation on the arrow of time, scientists stopped him in the hallway to tell him what big fans they were of his work. Carroll sat down with Wired.com on Feb. 19 at AAAS to explain his theories and why Marty McFlys adventure could never exist in the real world, where time only goes forward and never back. Wired.com: Can you explain your theory of time in laymans terms? Sean Carroll: Im trying to understand how time works. And thats a huge question that has lots of different aspects to it. A lot of them go back to Einstein and spacetime and how we measure time using clocks. But the particular aspect of time that Im interested in is the arrow of time: the fact that the past is different from the future. We remember the past but we dont remember the future. There are irreversible processes. There are things that happen, like you turn an egg into an omelet, but you cant turn an omelet into an egg. And we sort of understand that halfway. The arrow of time is based on ideas that go back to Ludwig Boltzmann, an Austrian physicist in the 1870s. He figured out this thing called entropy. Entropy is just a measure of how disorderly things are. And it tends to grow. Thats the second law of thermodynamics: Entropy goes up with time, things become more disorderly. So, if you neatly stack papers on your desk, and you walk away, youre not surprised they turn into a mess. Youd be very surprised if a mess turned into neatly stacked papers. Thats entropy and the arrow of time. Entropy goes up as it becomes messier. So, Boltzmann understood that and he explained how entropy is related to the arrow of time. But theres a missing piece to his explanation, which is, why was the entropy ever low to begin with? Why were the papers neatly stacked in the universe? Basically, our observable universe begins around 13.7 billion years ago in a state of exquisite order, exquisitely low entropy. Its like the universe is a wind-up toy that has been sort of puttering along for the last 13.7 billion years and will eventually wind down to nothing. But why was it ever wound up in the first place? Why was it in such a weird low-entropy unusual state? That is what Im trying to tackle. Im trying to understand cosmology, why the Big Bang had the properties it did. And its interesting to think that connects directly to our kitchens and how we can make eggs, how we can remember one direction of time, why causes precede effects, why we are born young and grow older. Its all because of entropy increasing. Its all because of conditions of the Big Bang. Wired.com: So the Big Bang starts it all. But you theorize that theres something before the Big Bang. Something that makes it happen. Whats that? Carroll: If you find an egg in your refrigerator, youre not surprised. You dont say, Wow, thats a low-entropy configuration. Thats unusual, because you know that the

egg is not alone in the universe. It came out of a chicken, which is part of a farm, which is part of the biosphere, etc., etc. But with the universe, we dont have that appeal to make. We cant say that the universe is part of something else. But thats exactly what Im saying. Im fitting in with a line of thought in modern cosmology that says that the observable universe is not all there is. Its part of a bigger multiverse. The Big Bang was not the beginning. And if thats true, it changes the question youre trying to ask. Its not, Why did the universe begin with low entropy? Its, Why did part of the universe go through a phase with low entropy? And that might be easier to answer.

Wired.com: In this multiverse theory, you have a static universe in the middle. From that, smaller universes pop off and travel in different directions, or arrows of time. So does that mean that the universe at the center has no time? Carroll: So thats a distinction that is worth drawing. Theres different moments in the history of the universe and time tells you which moment youre talking about. And then theres the arrow of time, which give us the feeling of progress, the feeling of flowing or moving through time. So that static universe in the middle has time as a coordinate but theres no arrow of time. Theres no future versus past, everything is equal to each other. Wired.com: So its a time that we dont understand and cant perceive? Carroll: We can measure it, but you wouldnt feel it. You wouldnt experience it. Because objects like us wouldnt exist in that environment. Because we depend on the arrow of time just for our existence. Wired.com: So then, what is time in that universe? Carroll: Even in empty space, time and space still exist. Physicists have no problem answering the question of If a tree falls in the woods and no ones there to hear it, does it

make a sound? They say, Yes! Of course it makes a sound! Likewise, if time flows without entropy and theres no one there to experience it, is there still time? Yes. Theres still time. Its still part of the fundamental laws of nature even in that part of the universe. Its just that events that happen in that empty universe dont have causality, dont have memory, dont have progress and dont have aging or metabolism or anything like that. Its just random fluctuations. Wired.com: So if this universe in the middle is just sitting and nothings happening there, then how exactly are these universes with arrows of time popping off of it? Because that seems like a measurable event. Carroll: Right. Thats an excellent point. And the answer is, almost nothing happens there. So the whole point of this idea that Im trying to develop is that the answer to the question, Why do we see the universe around us changing? is that there is no way for the universe to truly be static once and for all. There is no state the universe could be in that would just stay put for ever and ever and ever. If there were, we should settle into that state and sit there forever. Its like a ball rolling down the hill, but theres no bottom to the hill. The ball will always be rolling both in the future and in the past. So, that center part is locally static that little region there where there seems to be nothing happening. But, according to quantum mechanics, things can happen occasionally. Things can fluctuate into existence. Theres a probability of change occurring. So, what Im thinking of is the universe is kind of like an atomic nucleus. Its not completely stable. It has a half-life. It will decay. If you look at it, it looks perfectly stable, theres nothing happening theres nothing happening and then, boom! Suddenly theres an alpha particle coming out of it, except the alpha particle is another universe. Wired.com: So inside those new universes, which move forward with the arrow of time, there are places where the laws of physics are different anomalies in spacetime. Does the arrow of time still exist there? Carroll: It could. The weird thing about the arrow of time is that its not to be found in the underlying laws of physics. Its not there. So its a feature of the universe we see, but not a feature of the laws of the individual particles. So the arrow of time is built on top of whatever local laws of physics apply. Wired.com: So if the arrow of time is based on our consciousness and our ability to perceive it, then do people like you who understand it more fully experience time differently then the rest of us? Carroll: Not really. The way it works is that the perception comes first and then the understanding comes later. So the understanding doesnt change the perception, it just helps you put that perception into a wider context. Its a famous quote thats in my book

from St. Augustine, where he says something along the lines of, I know what time is until you ask me for a definition about it, and then I cant give it to you. So I think we all perceive the passage of time in very similar ways. But then trying to understand it doesnt change our perceptions. Wired.com: So what happens to the arrow in places like a black hole or at high speeds where our perception of it changes? Carroll: This goes back to relativity and Einstein. For anyone moving through spacetime, them and the clocks they bring along with them including their biological clocks like their heart and their mental perceptions no one ever feels time to be passing more quickly or more slowly. Or, at least, if you have accurate clocks with you, your clock always ticks one second per second. Thats true if youre inside a black hole, here on Earth, in the middle of nowhere, it doesnt matter. But what Einstein tells us is that path you take through space and time can dramatically affect the time that you feel elapsing. The arrow of time is about a direction, but its not about a speed. The important thing is that theres a consistent direction. That everywhere through space and time, this is the past and this is the future. Wired.com: So you would tell Michael J. Fox that its impossible for him to go back to the past and save his family? Carroll: The simplest way out of the puzzle of time travel is to say that it cant be done. Thats very likely the right answer. However, we dont know for sure. Were not absolutely proving that it cant be done. Wired.com: At the very least, you cant go back. Carroll: Yeah, no. You can easily go to the future, thats not a problem. Wired.com: Were going there right now! Carroll: Yesterday, I went to the future and here I am! One of things I point out in the book is that if we do imagine that it was possible, hypothetically, to go into the past, all the paradoxes that tend to arise are ultimately traced to the fact that you cant define a consistent arrow of time if you can go into the past. Because what you think of as your future is in the universes past. So it cant be one in the same everywhere. And thats not incompatible with the laws of physics, but its very incompatible with our everyday experience, where we can make choices that affect the future, but we cannot make choices that affect the past.

Wired.com: So, one part of the multiverse theory is that eventually our own universe will become empty and static. Does that mean well eventually pop out another universe of our own? Carroll: The arrow of time doesnt move forward forever. Theres a phase in the history of the universe where you go from low entropy to high entropy. But then once you reach the locally maximum entropy you can get to, theres no more arrow of time. Its just like this room. If you take all the air in this room and put it in the corner, thats low entropy. And then you let it go and it eventually fills the room and then it stops. And then the airs not doing anything. In that time when its changing, theres an arrow of time, but once you reach equilibrium, then the arrow ceases to exist. And then, in theory, new universes pop off. Wired.com: So theres an infinite number of universes behind us and an infinite number of universes coming ahead of us. Does that mean we can go forward to visit those universes ahead of us? Carroll: I suspect not, but I dont know. In fact, I have a postdoc at Caltech whos very interested in the possibility of universes bumping into each other. Now, we call them universes. But really, to be honest, they are regions of space with different local conditions. Its not like theyre metaphysically distinct from each other. Theyre just far away. Its possible that you could imagine universes bumping into each other and leaving traces, observable effects. Its also possible that thats not going to happen. That if theyre there, theres not going to be any sign of them there. If thats true, the only way this picture makes sense is if you think of the multiverse not as a theory, but as a prediction of a theory. If you think you understand the rules of gravity and quantum mechanics really, really well, you can say, According to the rules, universes pop into existence. Even if I cant observe them, thats a prediction of my theory, and Ive tested that theory using other methods. Were not even there yet. We dont know how to have a good theory, and we dont know how to test it. But the project that one envisions is coming up with a good theory in quantum gravity, testing it here in our universe, and then taking the predictions seriously for things we dont observe elsewhere. Images: 1) Artists rendition of the multiverse./Jason Torchinsky. 2) Diagram of the multiverse./Sean Carroll. 3) Ken Weingart.