event time travel

Time travel could be possible, but only with parallel timelines

Assistant Professor, Physics, Brock University

Disclosure statement

Barak Shoshany does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

Brock University provides funding as a member of The Conversation CA-FR.

Brock University provides funding as a member of The Conversation CA.

View all partners

Have you ever made a mistake that you wish you could undo? Correcting past mistakes is one of the reasons we find the concept of time travel so fascinating. As often portrayed in science fiction, with a time machine, nothing is permanent anymore — you can always go back and change it. But is time travel really possible in our universe , or is it just science fiction?

Read more: Curious Kids: is time travel possible for humans?

Our modern understanding of time and causality comes from general relativity . Theoretical physicist Albert Einstein’s theory combines space and time into a single entity — “spacetime” — and provides a remarkably intricate explanation of how they both work, at a level unmatched by any other established theory. This theory has existed for more than 100 years, and has been experimentally verified to extremely high precision, so physicists are fairly certain it provides an accurate description of the causal structure of our universe.

For decades, physicists have been trying to use general relativity to figure out if time travel is possible . It turns out that you can write down equations that describe time travel and are fully compatible and consistent with relativity. But physics is not mathematics, and equations are meaningless if they do not correspond to anything in reality.

Arguments against time travel

There are two main issues which make us think these equations may be unrealistic. The first issue is a practical one: building a time machine seems to require exotic matter , which is matter with negative energy. All the matter we see in our daily lives has positive energy — matter with negative energy is not something you can just find lying around. From quantum mechanics, we know that such matter can theoretically be created, but in too small quantities and for too short times .

However, there is no proof that it is impossible to create exotic matter in sufficient quantities. Furthermore, other equations may be discovered that allow time travel without requiring exotic matter. Therefore, this issue may just be a limitation of our current technology or understanding of quantum mechanics.

The other main issue is less practical, but more significant: it is the observation that time travel seems to contradict logic, in the form of time travel paradoxes . There are several types of such paradoxes, but the most problematic are consistency paradoxes .

A popular trope in science fiction, consistency paradoxes happen whenever there is a certain event that leads to changing the past, but the change itself prevents this event from happening in the first place.

For example, consider a scenario where I enter my time machine, use it to go back in time five minutes, and destroy the machine as soon as I get to the past. Now that I destroyed the time machine, it would be impossible for me to use it five minutes later.

But if I cannot use the time machine, then I cannot go back in time and destroy it. Therefore, it is not destroyed, so I can go back in time and destroy it. In other words, the time machine is destroyed if and only if it is not destroyed. Since it cannot be both destroyed and not destroyed simultaneously, this scenario is inconsistent and paradoxical.

Eliminating the paradoxes

There’s a common misconception in science fiction that paradoxes can be “created.” Time travellers are usually warned not to make significant changes to the past and to avoid meeting their past selves for this exact reason. Examples of this may be found in many time travel movies, such as the Back to the Future trilogy.

But in physics, a paradox is not an event that can actually happen — it is a purely theoretical concept that points towards an inconsistency in the theory itself. In other words, consistency paradoxes don’t merely imply time travel is a dangerous endeavour, they imply it simply cannot be possible.

This was one of the motivations for theoretical physicist Stephen Hawking to formulate his chronology protection conjecture , which states that time travel should be impossible. However, this conjecture so far remains unproven. Furthermore, the universe would be a much more interesting place if instead of eliminating time travel due to paradoxes, we could just eliminate the paradoxes themselves.

One attempt at resolving time travel paradoxes is theoretical physicist Igor Dmitriyevich Novikov’s self-consistency conjecture , which essentially states that you can travel to the past, but you cannot change it.

According to Novikov, if I tried to destroy my time machine five minutes in the past, I would find that it is impossible to do so. The laws of physics would somehow conspire to preserve consistency.

Introducing multiple histories

But what’s the point of going back in time if you cannot change the past? My recent work, together with my students Jacob Hauser and Jared Wogan, shows that there are time travel paradoxes that Novikov’s conjecture cannot resolve. This takes us back to square one, since if even just one paradox cannot be eliminated, time travel remains logically impossible.

So, is this the final nail in the coffin of time travel? Not quite. We showed that allowing for multiple histories (or in more familiar terms, parallel timelines) can resolve the paradoxes that Novikov’s conjecture cannot. In fact, it can resolve any paradox you throw at it.

The idea is very simple. When I exit the time machine, I exit into a different timeline. In that timeline, I can do whatever I want, including destroying the time machine, without changing anything in the original timeline I came from. Since I cannot destroy the time machine in the original timeline, which is the one I actually used to travel back in time, there is no paradox.

After working on time travel paradoxes for the last three years , I have become increasingly convinced that time travel could be possible, but only if our universe can allow multiple histories to coexist. So, can it?

Quantum mechanics certainly seems to imply so, at least if you subscribe to Everett’s “many-worlds” interpretation , where one history can “split” into multiple histories, one for each possible measurement outcome – for example, whether Schrödinger’s cat is alive or dead, or whether or not I arrived in the past.

But these are just speculations. My students and I are currently working on finding a concrete theory of time travel with multiple histories that is fully compatible with general relativity. Of course, even if we manage to find such a theory, this would not be sufficient to prove that time travel is possible, but it would at least mean that time travel is not ruled out by consistency paradoxes.

Time travel and parallel timelines almost always go hand-in-hand in science fiction, but now we have proof that they must go hand-in-hand in real science as well. General relativity and quantum mechanics tell us that time travel might be possible, but if it is, then multiple histories must also be possible.

• Time travel
• Theoretical physics
• Time machine
• Albert Einstein
• Listen to this article
• Time travel paradox

Research Fellow

Senior Research Fellow - Women's Health Services

Lecturer / Senior Lecturer - Marketing

Assistant Editor - 1 year cadetship

Executive Dean, Faculty of Health

• Skip to main content
• Keyboard shortcuts for audio player

• LISTEN & FOLLOW
• Apple Podcasts
• Google Podcasts
• Amazon Music
• Amazon Alexa

Your support helps make our show possible and unlocks access to our sponsor-free feed.

Paradox-Free Time Travel Is Theoretically Possible, Researchers Say

Matthew S. Schwartz

A dog dressed as Marty McFly from Back to the Future attends the Tompkins Square Halloween Dog Parade in 2015. New research says time travel might be possible without the problems McFly encountered. Timothy A. Clary/AFP via Getty Images hide caption

A dog dressed as Marty McFly from Back to the Future attends the Tompkins Square Halloween Dog Parade in 2015. New research says time travel might be possible without the problems McFly encountered.

"The past is obdurate," Stephen King wrote in his book about a man who goes back in time to prevent the Kennedy assassination. "It doesn't want to be changed."

Turns out, King might have been on to something.

Countless science fiction tales have explored the paradox of what would happen if you went back in time and did something in the past that endangered the future. Perhaps one of the most famous pop culture examples is in Back to the Future , when Marty McFly goes back in time and accidentally stops his parents from meeting, putting his own existence in jeopardy.

But maybe McFly wasn't in much danger after all. According a new paper from researchers at the University of Queensland, even if time travel were possible, the paradox couldn't actually exist.

Researchers ran the numbers and determined that even if you made a change in the past, the timeline would essentially self-correct, ensuring that whatever happened to send you back in time would still happen.

"Say you traveled in time in an attempt to stop COVID-19's patient zero from being exposed to the virus," University of Queensland scientist Fabio Costa told the university's news service .

"However, if you stopped that individual from becoming infected, that would eliminate the motivation for you to go back and stop the pandemic in the first place," said Costa, who co-authored the paper with honors undergraduate student Germain Tobar.

"This is a paradox — an inconsistency that often leads people to think that time travel cannot occur in our universe."

A variation is known as the "grandfather paradox" — in which a time traveler kills their own grandfather, in the process preventing the time traveler's birth.

The logical paradox has given researchers a headache, in part because according to Einstein's theory of general relativity, "closed timelike curves" are possible, theoretically allowing an observer to travel back in time and interact with their past self — potentially endangering their own existence.

But these researchers say that such a paradox wouldn't necessarily exist, because events would adjust themselves.

Take the coronavirus patient zero example. "You might try and stop patient zero from becoming infected, but in doing so, you would catch the virus and become patient zero, or someone else would," Tobar told the university's news service.

In other words, a time traveler could make changes, but the original outcome would still find a way to happen — maybe not the same way it happened in the first timeline but close enough so that the time traveler would still exist and would still be motivated to go back in time.

"No matter what you did, the salient events would just recalibrate around you," Tobar said.

The paper, "Reversible dynamics with closed time-like curves and freedom of choice," was published last week in the peer-reviewed journal Classical and Quantum Gravity . The findings seem consistent with another time travel study published this summer in the peer-reviewed journal Physical Review Letters. That study found that changes made in the past won't drastically alter the future.

Bestselling science fiction author Blake Crouch, who has written extensively about time travel, said the new study seems to support what certain time travel tropes have posited all along.

"The universe is deterministic and attempts to alter Past Event X are destined to be the forces which bring Past Event X into being," Crouch told NPR via email. "So the future can affect the past. Or maybe time is just an illusion. But I guess it's cool that the math checks out."

• time travel
• grandfather paradox

Is Time Travel Possible?

We all travel in time! We travel one year in time between birthdays, for example. And we are all traveling in time at approximately the same speed: 1 second per second.

We typically experience time at one second per second. Credit: NASA/JPL-Caltech

NASA's space telescopes also give us a way to look back in time. Telescopes help us see stars and galaxies that are very far away . It takes a long time for the light from faraway galaxies to reach us. So, when we look into the sky with a telescope, we are seeing what those stars and galaxies looked like a very long time ago.

However, when we think of the phrase "time travel," we are usually thinking of traveling faster than 1 second per second. That kind of time travel sounds like something you'd only see in movies or science fiction books. Could it be real? Science says yes!

This image from the Hubble Space Telescope shows galaxies that are very far away as they existed a very long time ago. Credit: NASA, ESA and R. Thompson (Univ. Arizona)

How do we know that time travel is possible?

More than 100 years ago, a famous scientist named Albert Einstein came up with an idea about how time works. He called it relativity. This theory says that time and space are linked together. Einstein also said our universe has a speed limit: nothing can travel faster than the speed of light (186,000 miles per second).

Einstein's theory of relativity says that space and time are linked together. Credit: NASA/JPL-Caltech

What does this mean for time travel? Well, according to this theory, the faster you travel, the slower you experience time. Scientists have done some experiments to show that this is true.

For example, there was an experiment that used two clocks set to the exact same time. One clock stayed on Earth, while the other flew in an airplane (going in the same direction Earth rotates).

After the airplane flew around the world, scientists compared the two clocks. The clock on the fast-moving airplane was slightly behind the clock on the ground. So, the clock on the airplane was traveling slightly slower in time than 1 second per second.

Credit: NASA/JPL-Caltech

Can we use time travel in everyday life?

We can't use a time machine to travel hundreds of years into the past or future. That kind of time travel only happens in books and movies. But the math of time travel does affect the things we use every day.

For example, we use GPS satellites to help us figure out how to get to new places. (Check out our video about how GPS satellites work .) NASA scientists also use a high-accuracy version of GPS to keep track of where satellites are in space. But did you know that GPS relies on time-travel calculations to help you get around town?

GPS satellites orbit around Earth very quickly at about 8,700 miles (14,000 kilometers) per hour. This slows down GPS satellite clocks by a small fraction of a second (similar to the airplane example above).

GPS satellites orbit around Earth at about 8,700 miles (14,000 kilometers) per hour. Credit: GPS.gov

However, the satellites are also orbiting Earth about 12,550 miles (20,200 km) above the surface. This actually speeds up GPS satellite clocks by a slighter larger fraction of a second.

Here's how: Einstein's theory also says that gravity curves space and time, causing the passage of time to slow down. High up where the satellites orbit, Earth's gravity is much weaker. This causes the clocks on GPS satellites to run faster than clocks on the ground.

The combined result is that the clocks on GPS satellites experience time at a rate slightly faster than 1 second per second. Luckily, scientists can use math to correct these differences in time.

If scientists didn't correct the GPS clocks, there would be big problems. GPS satellites wouldn't be able to correctly calculate their position or yours. The errors would add up to a few miles each day, which is a big deal. GPS maps might think your home is nowhere near where it actually is!

In Summary:

Yes, time travel is indeed a real thing. But it's not quite what you've probably seen in the movies. Under certain conditions, it is possible to experience time passing at a different rate than 1 second per second. And there are important reasons why we need to understand this real-world form of time travel.

If you liked this, you may like:

• The Magazine
• Stay Curious
• The Sciences
• Environment
• Planet Earth

What Are Wormholes, and Could They Be the Answer to Time Travel?

Wormholes, cosmic tunnels also known as einstein-rosen bridges, are a staple of science fiction. could they allow real-world humans to travel back in time.

The sci-fi landscape is littered with wormholes. From Douglas Adam's Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy and Rick and Morty to the Marvel Cinematic Universe, these theoretical constructs allow characters to zip between distant points in the universe as easy as stepping through a doorway.

An Einstein-Rosen bridge is the simplest kind of wormhole. And while it can, in theory, allow you to meet a new friend from a distant part of the universe, there are some important reasons why it won’t let you travel back in time.

Black Holes, White Holes and Wormholes

Let’s start with everybody’s favorite astronomical mystery: a black hole . Despite their fearsome reputation, they’re actually rather simple creature. They have a point of infinite density, known as the singularity, in their centers. They are surrounded by a boundary called the event horizon.

The event horizon doesn’t exist in the same way that the surface of a planet exists. Instead it’s just a mathematical line in the sand that tells you one thing: if you cross within that special distance, you’re trapped forever, because you’ll have to travel faster than the speed of light to escape.

Read More: 'Fuzzballs' Might Be the Answer to a Decades-Old Paradox About Black Holes

And that’s it. That’s a black hole. A singularity and an event horizon. All things that cross the event horizon will never escape back into the universe – things go in and never come out.

Mathematically we can also define the polar opposite of a black hole, which is conveniently called a white hole. White holes also have a singularity, but their event horizons act differently. Anything already on the outside of a white hole (like, the entire universe) can never, ever cross within it, no matter how hard it tries. And anything already inside the white hole will find itself ejected from it faster than the speed of light.

Now when we take a black hole and a white hole and connect their singularities together, we get an entirely new kind of object: an Einstein-Rosen bridge , better known as a wormhole.

Read More: Astronomers Found a Baffling Black Hole That Existed 13 Billion Years Ago

What Is a Wormhole?

Wormholes are essentially hollow tubes through space and time that can connect very distant regions of the universe. A star may be thousands of light-years away, but a wormhole can connect that star to us with a tunnel only a few steps long.

Wormholes also have the somewhat mystical ability to allow backwards time travel. If you take one end of the wormhole and accelerate it to a speed close to that of light, it will experience time dilation — its internal “clock” will run slower than the rest of the universe.

That will cause the two ends of the wormhole to no longer be synchronized in time. Then you could walk in one end and end up in your own past. Voilà: time travel.

Read More: Is There a Particle That Can Travel Back in Time?

Can Humans Travel Through Wormholes?

There's just one, tiny, teensy problem with this setup: Einstein-Rosen bridges are indeed wormholes, but the entrance to the wormhole sits behind the black hole event horizon. And the number one rule of black hole event horizons is that once you cross them, you’re never allowed to escape. Ever.

Once you pass through a black hole event horizon, you are forced towards the singularity, where you are guaranteed to meet your gruesome end. In other words, once you enter an Einstein-Rosen bridge, you will never escape.

So, the unfortunate truth with Einstein-Rosen bridges is that while they appear to be magical doorways to distant reaches of the universe, they are just as deadly as black holes. When you enter you can meet other travelers who have fallen in from the other side, and you could even carry on a conversation…briefly, before you both struck the singularity.

There have been attempts to stabilize Einstein-Rosen bridges and make them traversable by somehow getting their entrances to sit outside the event horizon. So far the only way we know how to do this is with exotic matter. If you threaded the wormhole tunnel with matter that had negative mass, then in principle you could have a not-deadly-at-all wormhole.

Alas, negative matter does not appear to exist in the universe, and so our wormhole — and time travel — dreams will have to remain as mere mathematical fantasies.

Read More: What Did Einstein's Theories Say About the Illusion of Time?

• space exploration

Already a subscriber?

Register or Log In

Keep reading for as low as $1.99!

Sign up for our weekly science updates.

Save up to 40% off the cover price when you subscribe to Discover magazine.

Is time travel even possible? An astrophysicist explains the science behind the science fiction

Published: Nov 13, 2023

By: Magazine Editor

Written by Adi Foord , assistant professor of physics , UMBC

Curious Kids is a series for children of all ages. If you have a question you’d like an expert to answer, send it to [email protected] .

Will it ever be possible for time travel to occur? – Alana C., age 12, Queens, New York

Have you ever dreamed of traveling through time, like characters do in science fiction movies? For centuries, the concept of time travel has captivated people’s imaginations. Time travel is the concept of moving between different points in time, just like you move between different places. In movies, you might have seen characters using special machines, magical devices or even hopping into a futuristic car to travel backward or forward in time.

But is this just a fun idea for movies, or could it really happen?

The question of whether time is reversible remains one of the biggest unresolved questions in science. If the universe follows the laws of thermodynamics , it may not be possible. The second law of thermodynamics states that things in the universe can either remain the same or become more disordered over time.

It’s a bit like saying you can’t unscramble eggs once they’ve been cooked. According to this law, the universe can never go back exactly to how it was before. Time can only go forward, like a one-way street.

Time is relative

However, physicist Albert Einstein’s theory of special relativity suggests that time passes at different rates for different people. Someone speeding along on a spaceship moving close to the speed of light – 671 million miles per hour! – will experience time slower than a person on Earth.

People have yet to build spaceships that can move at speeds anywhere near as fast as light, but astronauts who visit the International Space Station orbit around the Earth at speeds close to 17,500 mph. Astronaut Scott Kelly has spent 520 days at the International Space Station, and as a result has aged a little more slowly than his twin brother – and fellow astronaut – Mark Kelly. Scott used to be 6 minutes younger than his twin brother. Now, because Scott was traveling so much faster than Mark and for so many days, he is 6 minutes and 5 milliseconds younger .

Some scientists are exploring other ideas that could theoretically allow time travel. One concept involves wormholes , or hypothetical tunnels in space that could create shortcuts for journeys across the universe. If someone could build a wormhole and then figure out a way to move one end at close to the speed of light – like the hypothetical spaceship mentioned above – the moving end would age more slowly than the stationary end. Someone who entered the moving end and exited the wormhole through the stationary end would come out in their past.

However, wormholes remain theoretical: Scientists have yet to spot one. It also looks like it would be incredibly challenging to send humans through a wormhole space tunnel.

Paradoxes and failed dinner parties

There are also paradoxes associated with time travel. The famous “ grandfather paradox ” is a hypothetical problem that could arise if someone traveled back in time and accidentally prevented their grandparents from meeting. This would create a paradox where you were never born, which raises the question: How could you have traveled back in time in the first place? It’s a mind-boggling puzzle that adds to the mystery of time travel.

Famously, physicist Stephen Hawking tested the possibility of time travel by throwing a dinner party where invitations noting the date, time and coordinates were not sent out until after it had happened. His hope was that his invitation would be read by someone living in the future, who had capabilities to travel back in time. But no one showed up.

As he pointed out : “The best evidence we have that time travel is not possible, and never will be, is that we have not been invaded by hordes of tourists from the future.”

Telescopes are time machines

Interestingly, astrophysicists armed with powerful telescopes possess a unique form of time travel. As they peer into the vast expanse of the cosmos, they gaze into the past universe. Light from all galaxies and stars takes time to travel, and these beams of light carry information from the distant past. When astrophysicists observe a star or a galaxy through a telescope, they are not seeing it as it is in the present, but as it existed when the light began its journey to Earth millions to billions of years ago. https://www.youtube.com/embed/QeRtcJi3V38?wmode=transparent&start=0 Telescopes are a kind of time machine – they let you peer into the past.

NASA’s newest space telescope, the James Webb Space Telescope , is peering at galaxies that were formed at the very beginning of the Big Bang, about 13.7 billion years ago.

While we aren’t likely to have time machines like the ones in movies anytime soon, scientists are actively researching and exploring new ideas. But for now, we’ll have to enjoy the idea of time travel in our favorite books, movies and dreams.

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article and see more than 250 UMBC articles available in The Conversation.

Tags: CNMS , Physics , The Conversation

Related Posts

• Science & Tech

UMBC statistician selected to work with Addis Ababa University in Ethiopia

Thirsty in paradise: Water crises are a growing problem across the Caribbean islands

How 19th-century Spiritualists ‘canceled’ the idea of hell to address social and political concerns

Search UMBC Search

• Accreditation
• Consumer Information
• Equal Opportunity
• Privacy PDF Download
• Web Accessibility

Search UMBC.edu

• Table of Contents
• Random Entry
• Chronological
• Editorial Information
• About the SEP
• Editorial Board
• How to Cite the SEP
• Special Characters
• Advanced Tools
• Support the SEP
• PDFs for SEP Friends
• Make a Donation
• SEPIA for Libraries
• Entry Contents

Bibliography

Academic tools.

• Friends PDF Preview
• Author and Citation Info
• Back to Top

Time Travel

There is an extensive literature on time travel in both philosophy and physics. Part of the great interest of the topic stems from the fact that reasons have been given both for thinking that time travel is physically possible—and for thinking that it is logically impossible! This entry deals primarily with philosophical issues; issues related to the physics of time travel are covered in the separate entries on time travel and modern physics and time machines . We begin with the definitional question: what is time travel? We then turn to the major objection to the possibility of backwards time travel: the Grandfather paradox. Next, issues concerning causation are discussed—and then, issues in the metaphysics of time and change. We end with a discussion of the question why, if backwards time travel will ever occur, we have not been visited by time travellers from the future.

1.1 Time Discrepancy

1.2 changing the past, 2.1 can and cannot, 2.2 improbable coincidences, 2.3 inexplicable occurrences, 3.1 backwards causation, 3.2 causal loops, 4.1 time travel and time, 4.2 time travel and change, 5. where are the time travellers, other internet resources, related entries, 1. what is time travel.

There is a number of rather different scenarios which would seem, intuitively, to count as ‘time travel’—and a number of scenarios which, while sharing certain features with some of the time travel cases, seem nevertheless not to count as genuine time travel: [ 1 ]

Time travel Doctor . Doctor Who steps into a machine in 2024. Observers outside the machine see it disappear. Inside the machine, time seems to Doctor Who to pass for ten minutes. Observers in 1984 (or 3072) see the machine appear out of nowhere. Doctor Who steps out. [ 2 ] Leap . The time traveller takes hold of a special device (or steps into a machine) and suddenly disappears; she appears at an earlier (or later) time. Unlike in Doctor , the time traveller experiences no lapse of time between her departure and arrival: from her point of view, she instantaneously appears at the destination time. [ 3 ] Putnam . Oscar Smith steps into a machine in 2024. From his point of view, things proceed much as in Doctor : time seems to Oscar Smith to pass for a while; then he steps out in 1984. For observers outside the machine, things proceed differently. Observers of Oscar’s arrival in the past see a time machine suddenly appear out of nowhere and immediately divide into two copies of itself: Oscar Smith steps out of one; and (through the window) they see inside the other something that looks just like what they would see if a film of Oscar Smith were played backwards (his hair gets shorter; food comes out of his mouth and goes back into his lunch box in a pristine, uneaten state; etc.). Observers of Oscar’s departure from the future do not simply see his time machine disappear after he gets into it: they see it collide with the apparently backwards-running machine just described, in such a way that both are simultaneously annihilated. [ 4 ] Gödel . The time traveller steps into an ordinary rocket ship (not a special time machine) and flies off on a certain course. At no point does she disappear (as in Leap ) or ‘turn back in time’ (as in Putnam )—yet thanks to the overall structure of spacetime (as conceived in the General Theory of Relativity), the traveller arrives at a point in the past (or future) of her departure. (Compare the way in which someone can travel continuously westwards, and arrive to the east of her departure point, thanks to the overall curved structure of the surface of the earth.) [ 5 ] Einstein . The time traveller steps into an ordinary rocket ship and flies off at high speed on a round trip. When he returns to Earth, thanks to certain effects predicted by the Special Theory of Relativity, only a very small amount of time has elapsed for him—he has aged only a few months—while a great deal of time has passed on Earth: it is now hundreds of years in the future of his time of departure. [ 6 ] Not time travel Sleep . One is very tired, and falls into a deep sleep. When one awakes twelve hours later, it seems from one’s own point of view that hardly any time has passed. Coma . One is in a coma for a number of years and then awakes, at which point it seems from one’s own point of view that hardly any time has passed. Cryogenics . One is cryogenically frozen for hundreds of years. Upon being woken, it seems from one’s own point of view that hardly any time has passed. Virtual . One enters a highly realistic, interactive virtual reality simulator in which some past era has been recreated down to the finest detail. Crystal . One looks into a crystal ball and sees what happened at some past time, or will happen at some future time. (Imagine that the crystal ball really works—like a closed-circuit security monitor, except that the vision genuinely comes from some past or future time. Even so, the person looking at the crystal ball is not thereby a time traveller.) Waiting . One enters one’s closet and stays there for seven hours. When one emerges, one has ‘arrived’ seven hours in the future of one’s ‘departure’. Dateline . One departs at 8pm on Monday, flies for fourteen hours, and arrives at 10pm on Monday.

A satisfactory definition of time travel would, at least, need to classify the cases in the right way. There might be some surprises—perhaps, on the best definition of ‘time travel’, Cryogenics turns out to be time travel after all—but it should certainly be the case, for example, that Gödel counts as time travel and that Sleep and Waiting do not. [ 7 ]

In fact there is no entirely satisfactory definition of ‘time travel’ in the literature. The most popular definition is the one given by Lewis (1976, 145–6):

What is time travel? Inevitably, it involves a discrepancy between time and time. Any traveller departs and then arrives at his destination; the time elapsed from departure to arrival…is the duration of the journey. But if he is a time traveller, the separation in time between departure and arrival does not equal the duration of his journey.…How can it be that the same two events, his departure and his arrival, are separated by two unequal amounts of time?…I reply by distinguishing time itself, external time as I shall also call it, from the personal time of a particular time traveller: roughly, that which is measured by his wristwatch. His journey takes an hour of his personal time, let us say…But the arrival is more than an hour after the departure in external time, if he travels toward the future; or the arrival is before the departure in external time…if he travels toward the past.

This correctly excludes Waiting —where the length of the ‘journey’ precisely matches the separation between ‘arrival’ and ‘departure’—and Crystal , where there is no journey at all—and it includes Doctor . It has trouble with Gödel , however—because when the overall structure of spacetime is as twisted as it is in the sort of case Gödel imagined, the notion of external time (“time itself”) loses its grip.

Another definition of time travel that one sometimes encounters in the literature (Arntzenius, 2006, 602) (Smeenk and Wüthrich, 2011, 5, 26) equates time travel with the existence of CTC’s: closed timelike curves. A curve in this context is a line in spacetime; it is timelike if it could represent the career of a material object; and it is closed if it returns to its starting point (i.e. in spacetime—not merely in space). This now includes Gödel —but it excludes Einstein .

The lack of an adequate definition of ‘time travel’ does not matter for our purposes here. [ 8 ] It suffices that we have clear cases of (what would count as) time travel—and that these cases give rise to all the problems that we shall wish to discuss.

Some authors (in philosophy, physics and science fiction) consider ‘time travel’ scenarios in which there are two temporal dimensions (e.g. Meiland (1974)), and others consider scenarios in which there are multiple ‘parallel’ universes—each one with its own four-dimensional spacetime (e.g. Deutsch and Lockwood (1994)). There is a question whether travelling to another version of 2001 (i.e. not the very same version one experienced in the past)—a version at a different point on the second time dimension, or in a different parallel universe—is really time travel, or whether it is more akin to Virtual . In any case, this kind of scenario does not give rise to many of the problems thrown up by the idea of travelling to the very same past one experienced in one’s younger days. It is these problems that form the primary focus of the present entry, and so we shall not have much to say about other kinds of ‘time travel’ scenario in what follows.

One objection to the possibility of time travel flows directly from attempts to define it in anything like Lewis’s way. The worry is that because time travel involves “a discrepancy between time and time”, time travel scenarios are simply incoherent. The time traveller traverses thirty years in one year; she is 51 years old 21 years after her birth; she dies at the age of 100, 200 years before her birth; and so on. The objection is that these are straightforward contradictions: the basic description of what time travel involves is inconsistent; therefore time travel is logically impossible. [ 9 ]

There must be something wrong with this objection, because it would show Einstein to be logically impossible—whereas this sort of future-directed time travel has actually been observed (albeit on a much smaller scale—but that does not affect the present point) (Hafele and Keating, 1972b,a). The most common response to the objection is that there is no contradiction because the interval of time traversed by the time traveller and the duration of her journey are measured with respect to different frames of reference: there is thus no reason why they should coincide. A similar point applies to the discrepancy between the time elapsed since the time traveller’s birth and her age upon arrival. There is no more of a contradiction here than in the fact that Melbourne is both 800 kilometres away from Sydney—along the main highway—and 1200 kilometres away—along the coast road. [ 10 ]

Before leaving the question ‘What is time travel?’ we should note the crucial distinction between changing the past and participating in (aka affecting or influencing) the past. [ 11 ] In the popular imagination, backwards time travel would allow one to change the past: to right the wrongs of history, to prevent one’s younger self doing things one later regretted, and so on. In a model with a single past, however, this idea is incoherent: the very description of the case involves a contradiction (e.g. the time traveller burns all her diaries at midnight on her fortieth birthday in 1976, and does not burn all her diaries at midnight on her fortieth birthday in 1976). It is not as if there are two versions of the past: the original one, without the time traveller present, and then a second version, with the time traveller playing a role. There is just one past—and two perspectives on it: the perspective of the younger self, and the perspective of the older time travelling self. If these perspectives are inconsistent (e.g. an event occurs in one but not the other) then the time travel scenario is incoherent.

This means that time travellers can do less than we might have hoped: they cannot right the wrongs of history; they cannot even stir a speck of dust on a certain day in the past if, on that day, the speck was in fact unmoved. But this does not mean that time travellers must be entirely powerless in the past: while they cannot do anything that did not actually happen, they can (in principle) do anything that did happen. Time travellers cannot change the past: they cannot make it different from the way it was—but they can participate in it: they can be amongst the people who did make the past the way it was. [ 12 ]

What about models involving two temporal dimensions, or parallel universes—do they allow for coherent scenarios in which the past is changed? [ 13 ] There is certainly no contradiction in saying that the time traveller burns all her diaries at midnight on her fortieth birthday in 1976 in universe 1 (or at hypertime A ), and does not burn all her diaries at midnight on her fortieth birthday in 1976 in universe 2 (or at hypertime B ). The question is whether this kind of story involves changing the past in the sense originally envisaged: righting the wrongs of history, preventing subsequently regretted actions, and so on. Goddu (2003) and van Inwagen (2010) argue that it does (in the context of particular hypertime models), while Smith (1997, 365–6; 2015) argues that it does not: that it involves avoiding the past—leaving it untouched while travelling to a different version of the past in which things proceed differently.

2. The Grandfather Paradox

The most important objection to the logical possibility of backwards time travel is the so-called Grandfather paradox. This paradox has actually convinced many people that backwards time travel is impossible:

The dead giveaway that true time-travel is flatly impossible arises from the well-known “paradoxes” it entails. The classic example is “What if you go back into the past and kill your grandfather when he was still a little boy?”…So complex and hopeless are the paradoxes…that the easiest way out of the irrational chaos that results is to suppose that true time-travel is, and forever will be, impossible. (Asimov 1995 [2003, 276–7]) travel into one’s past…would seem to give rise to all sorts of logical problems, if you were able to change history. For example, what would happen if you killed your parents before you were born. It might be that one could avoid such paradoxes by some modification of the concept of free will. But this will not be necessary if what I call the chronology protection conjecture is correct: The laws of physics prevent closed timelike curves from appearing . (Hawking, 1992, 604) [ 14 ]

The paradox comes in different forms. Here’s one version:

If time travel was logically possible then the time traveller could return to the past and in a suicidal rage destroy his time machine before it was completed and murder his younger self. But if this was so a necessary condition for the time trip to have occurred at all is removed, and we should then conclude that the time trip did not occur. Hence if the time trip did occur, then it did not occur. Hence it did not occur, and it is necessary that it did not occur. To reply, as it is standardly done, that our time traveller cannot change the past in this way, is a petitio principii . Why is it that the time traveller is constrained in this way? What mysterious force stills his sudden suicidal rage? (Smith, 1985, 58)

The idea is that backwards time travel is impossible because if it occurred, time travellers would attempt to do things such as kill their younger selves (or their grandfathers etc.). We know that doing these things—indeed, changing the past in any way—is impossible. But were there time travel, there would then be nothing left to stop these things happening. If we let things get to the stage where the time traveller is facing Grandfather with a loaded weapon, then there is nothing left to prevent the impossible from occurring. So we must draw the line earlier: it must be impossible for someone to get into this situation at all; that is, backwards time travel must be impossible.

In order to defend the possibility of time travel in the face of this argument we need to show that time travel is not a sure route to doing the impossible. So, given that a time traveller has gone to the past and is facing Grandfather, what could stop her killing Grandfather? Some science fiction authors resort to the idea of chaperones or time guardians who prevent time travellers from changing the past—or to mysterious forces of logic. But it is hard to take these ideas seriously—and more importantly, it is hard to make them work in detail when we remember that changing the past is impossible. (The chaperone is acting to ensure that the past remains as it was—but the only reason it ever was that way is because of his very actions.) [ 15 ] Fortunately there is a better response—also to be found in the science fiction literature, and brought to the attention of philosophers by Lewis (1976). What would stop the time traveller doing the impossible? She would fail “for some commonplace reason”, as Lewis (1976, 150) puts it. Her gun might jam, a noise might distract her, she might slip on a banana peel, etc. Nothing more than such ordinary occurrences is required to stop the time traveller killing Grandfather. Hence backwards time travel does not entail the occurrence of impossible events—and so the above objection is defused.

A problem remains. Suppose Tim, a time-traveller, is facing his grandfather with a loaded gun. Can Tim kill Grandfather? On the one hand, yes he can. He is an excellent shot; there is no chaperone to stop him; the laws of logic will not magically stay his hand; he hates Grandfather and will not hesitate to pull the trigger; etc. On the other hand, no he can’t. To kill Grandfather would be to change the past, and no-one can do that (not to mention the fact that if Grandfather died, then Tim would not have been born). So we have a contradiction: Tim can kill Grandfather and Tim cannot kill Grandfather. Time travel thus leads to a contradiction: so it is impossible.

Note the difference between this version of the Grandfather paradox and the version considered above. In the earlier version, the contradiction happens if Tim kills Grandfather. The solution was to say that Tim can go into the past without killing Grandfather—hence time travel does not entail a contradiction. In the new version, the contradiction happens as soon as Tim gets to the past. Of course Tim does not kill Grandfather—but we still have a contradiction anyway: for he both can do it, and cannot do it. As Lewis puts it:

Could a time traveler change the past? It seems not: the events of a past moment could no more change than numbers could. Yet it seems that he would be as able as anyone to do things that would change the past if he did them. If a time traveler visiting the past both could and couldn’t do something that would change it, then there cannot possibly be such a time traveler. (Lewis, 1976, 149)

Lewis’s own solution to this problem has been widely accepted. [ 16 ] It turns on the idea that to say that something can happen is to say that its occurrence is compossible with certain facts, where context determines (more or less) which facts are the relevant ones. Tim’s killing Grandfather in 1921 is compossible with the facts about his weapon, training, state of mind, and so on. It is not compossible with further facts, such as the fact that Grandfather did not die in 1921. Thus ‘Tim can kill Grandfather’ is true in one sense (relative to one set of facts) and false in another sense (relative to another set of facts)—but there is no single sense in which it is both true and false. So there is no contradiction here—merely an equivocation.

Another response is that of Vihvelin (1996), who argues that there is no contradiction here because ‘Tim can kill Grandfather’ is simply false (i.e. contra Lewis, there is no legitimate sense in which it is true). According to Vihvelin, for ‘Tim can kill Grandfather’ to be true, there must be at least some occasions on which ‘If Tim had tried to kill Grandfather, he would or at least might have succeeded’ is true—but, Vihvelin argues, at any world remotely like ours, the latter counterfactual is always false. [ 17 ]

Return to the original version of the Grandfather paradox and Lewis’s ‘commonplace reasons’ response to it. This response engenders a new objection—due to Horwich (1987)—not to the possibility but to the probability of backwards time travel.

Think about correlated events in general. Whenever we see two things frequently occurring together, this is because one of them causes the other, or some third thing causes both. Horwich calls this the Principle of V-Correlation:

if events of type A and B are associated with one another, then either there is always a chain of events between them…or else we find an earlier event of type C that links up with A and B by two such chains of events. What we do not see is…an inverse fork—in which A and B are connected only with a characteristic subsequent event, but no preceding one. (Horwich, 1987, 97–8)

For example, suppose that two students turn up to class wearing the same outfits. That could just be a coincidence (i.e. there is no common cause, and no direct causal link between the two events). If it happens every week for the whole semester, it is possible that it is a coincidence, but this is extremely unlikely . Normally, we see this sort of extensive correlation only if either there is a common cause (e.g. both students have product endorsement deals with the same clothing company, or both slavishly copy the same influencer) or a direct causal link (e.g. one student is copying the other).

Now consider the time traveller setting off to kill her younger self. As discussed, no contradiction need ensue—this is prevented not by chaperones or mysterious forces, but by a run of ordinary occurrences in which the trigger falls off the time traveller’s gun, a gust of wind pushes her bullet off course, she slips on a banana peel, and so on. But now consider this run of ordinary occurrences. Whenever the time traveller contemplates auto-infanticide, someone nearby will drop a banana peel ready for her to slip on, or a bird will begin to fly so that it will be in the path of the time traveller’s bullet by the time she fires, and so on. In general, there will be a correlation between auto-infanticide attempts and foiling occurrences such as the presence of banana peels—and this correlation will be of the type that does not involve a direct causal connection between the correlated events or a common cause of both. But extensive correlations of this sort are, as we saw, extremely rare—so backwards time travel will happen about as often as you will see two people wear the same outfits to class every day of semester, without there being any causal connection between what one wears and what the other wears.

We can set out Horwich’s argument this way:

• If time travel were ever to occur, we should see extensive uncaused correlations.
• It is extremely unlikely that we should ever see extensive uncaused correlations.
• Therefore time travel is extremely unlikely to occur.

The conclusion is not that time travel is impossible, but that we should treat it the way we treat the possibility of, say, tossing a fair coin and getting heads one thousand times in a row. As Price (1996, 278 n.7) puts it—in the context of endorsing Horwich’s conclusion: “the hypothesis of time travel can be made to imply propositions of arbitrarily low probability. This is not a classical reductio, but it is as close as science ever gets.”

Smith (1997) attacks both premisses of Horwich’s argument. Against the first premise, he argues that backwards time travel, in itself, does not entail extensive uncaused correlations. Rather, when we look more closely, we see that time travel scenarios involving extensive uncaused correlations always build in prior coincidences which are themselves highly unlikely. Against the second premise, he argues that, from the fact that we have never seen extensive uncaused correlations, it does not follow that we never shall. This is not inductive scepticism: let us assume (contra the inductive sceptic) that in the absence of any specific reason for thinking things should be different in the future, we are entitled to assume they will continue being the same; still we cannot dismiss a specific reason for thinking the future will be a certain way simply on the basis that things have never been that way in the past. You might reassure an anxious friend that the sun will certainly rise tomorrow because it always has in the past—but you cannot similarly refute an astronomer who claims to have discovered a specific reason for thinking that the earth will stop rotating overnight.

Sider (2002, 119–20) endorses Smith’s second objection. Dowe (2003) criticises Smith’s first objection, but agrees with the second, concluding overall that time travel has not been shown to be improbable. Ismael (2003) reaches a similar conclusion. Goddu (2007) criticises Smith’s first objection to Horwich. Further contributions to the debate include Arntzenius (2006), Smeenk and Wüthrich (2011, §2.2) and Elliott (2018). For other arguments to the same conclusion as Horwich’s—that time travel is improbable—see Ney (2000) and Effingham (2020).

Return again to the original version of the Grandfather paradox and Lewis’s ‘commonplace reasons’ response to it. This response engenders a further objection. The autoinfanticidal time traveller is attempting to do something impossible (render herself permanently dead from an age younger than her age at the time of the attempts). Suppose we accept that she will not succeed and that what will stop her is a succession of commonplace occurrences. The previous objection was that such a succession is improbable . The new objection is that the exclusion of the time traveler from successfully committing auto-infanticide is mysteriously inexplicable . The worry is as follows. Each particular event that foils the time traveller is explicable in a perfectly ordinary way; but the inevitable combination of these events amounts to a ring-fencing of the forbidden zone of autoinfanticide—and this ring-fencing is mystifying. It’s like a grand conspiracy to stop the time traveler from doing what she wants to do—and yet there are no conspirators: no time lords, no magical forces of logic. This is profoundly perplexing. Riggs (1997, 52) writes: “Lewis’s account may do for a once only attempt, but is untenable as a general explanation of Tim’s continual lack of success if he keeps on trying.” Ismael (2003, 308) writes: “Considered individually, there will be nothing anomalous in the explanations…It is almost irresistible to suppose, however, that there is something anomalous in the cases considered collectively, i.e., in our unfailing lack of success.” See also Gorovitz (1964, 366–7), Horwich (1987, 119–21) and Carroll (2010, 86).

There have been two different kinds of defense of time travel against the objection that it involves mysteriously inexplicable occurrences. Baron and Colyvan (2016, 70) agree with the objectors that a purely causal explanation of failure—e.g. Tim fails to kill Grandfather because first he slips on a banana peel, then his gun jams, and so on—is insufficient. However they argue that, in addition, Lewis offers a non-causal—a logical —explanation of failure: “What explains Tim’s failure to kill his grandfather, then, is something about logic; specifically: Tim fails to kill his grandfather because the law of non-contradiction holds.” Smith (2017) argues that the appearance of inexplicability is illusory. There are no scenarios satisfying the description ‘a time traveller commits autoinfanticide’ (or changes the past in any other way) because the description is self-contradictory (e.g. it involves the time traveller permanently dying at 20 and also being alive at 40). So whatever happens it will not be ‘that’. There is literally no way for the time traveller not to fail. Hence there is no need for—or even possibility of—a substantive explanation of why failure invariably occurs, and such failure is not perplexing.

3. Causation

Backwards time travel scenarios give rise to interesting issues concerning causation. In this section we examine two such issues.

Earlier we distinguished changing the past and affecting the past, and argued that while the former is impossible, backwards time travel need involve only the latter. Affecting the past would be an example of backwards causation (i.e. causation where the effect precedes its cause)—and it has been argued that this too is impossible, or at least problematic. [ 18 ] The classic argument against backwards causation is the bilking argument . [ 19 ] Faced with the claim that some event A causes an earlier event B , the proponent of the bilking objection recommends an attempt to decorrelate A and B —that is, to bring about A in cases in which B has not occurred, and to prevent A in cases in which B has occurred. If the attempt is successful, then B often occurs despite the subsequent nonoccurrence of A , and A often occurs without B occurring, and so A cannot be the cause of B . If, on the other hand, the attempt is unsuccessful—if, that is, A cannot be prevented when B has occurred, nor brought about when B has not occurred—then, it is argued, it must be B that is the cause of A , rather than vice versa.

The bilking procedure requires repeated manipulation of event A . Thus, it cannot get under way in cases in which A is either unrepeatable or unmanipulable. Furthermore, the procedure requires us to know whether or not B has occurred, prior to manipulating A —and thus, it cannot get under way in cases in which it cannot be known whether or not B has occurred until after the occurrence or nonoccurrence of A (Dummett, 1964). These three loopholes allow room for many claims of backwards causation that cannot be touched by the bilking argument, because the bilking procedure cannot be performed at all. But what about those cases in which it can be performed? If the procedure succeeds—that is, A and B are decorrelated—then the claim that A causes B is refuted, or at least weakened (depending upon the details of the case). But if the bilking attempt fails, it does not follow that it must be B that is the cause of A , rather than vice versa. Depending upon the situation, that B causes A might become a viable alternative to the hypothesis that A causes B —but there is no reason to think that this alternative must always be the superior one. For example, suppose that I see a photo of you in a paper dated well before your birth, accompanied by a report of your arrival from the future. I now try to bilk your upcoming time trip—but I slip on a banana peel while rushing to push you away from your time machine, my time travel horror stories only inspire you further, and so on. Or again, suppose that I know that you were not in Sydney yesterday. I now try to get you to go there in your time machine—but first I am struck by lightning, then I fall down a manhole, and so on. What does all this prove? Surely not that your arrival in the past causes your departure from the future. Depending upon the details of the case, it seems that we might well be entitled to describe it as involving backwards time travel and backwards causation. At least, if we are not so entitled, this must be because of other facts about the case: it would not follow simply from the repeated coincidental failures of my bilking attempts.

Backwards time travel would apparently allow for the possibility of causal loops, in which things come from nowhere. The things in question might be objects—imagine a time traveller who steals a time machine from the local museum in order to make his time trip and then donates the time machine to the same museum at the end of the trip (i.e. in the past). In this case the machine itself is never built by anyone—it simply exists. The things in question might be information—imagine a time traveller who explains the theory behind time travel to her younger self: theory that she herself knows only because it was explained to her in her youth by her time travelling older self. The things in question might be actions. Imagine a time traveller who visits his younger self. When he encounters his younger self, he suddenly has a vivid memory of being punched on the nose by a strange visitor. He realises that this is that very encounter—and resignedly proceeds to punch his younger self. Why did he do it? Because he knew that it would happen and so felt that he had to do it—but he only knew it would happen because he in fact did it. [ 20 ]

One might think that causal loops are impossible—and hence that insofar as backwards time travel entails such loops, it too is impossible. [ 21 ] There are two issues to consider here. First, does backwards time travel entail causal loops? Lewis (1976, 148) raises the question whether there must be causal loops whenever there is backwards causation; in response to the question, he says simply “I am not sure.” Mellor (1998, 131) appears to claim a positive answer to the question. [ 22 ] Hanley (2004, 130) defends a negative answer by telling a time travel story in which there is backwards time travel and backwards causation, but no causal loops. [ 23 ] Monton (2009) criticises Hanley’s counterexample, but also defends a negative answer via different counterexamples. Effingham (2020) too argues for a negative answer.

Second, are causal loops impossible, or in some other way objectionable? One objection is that causal loops are inexplicable . There have been two main kinds of response to this objection. One is to agree but deny that this is a problem. Lewis (1976, 149) accepts that a loop (as a whole) would be inexplicable—but thinks that this inexplicability (like that of the Big Bang or the decay of a tritium atom) is merely strange, not impossible. In a similar vein, Meyer (2012, 263) argues that if someone asked for an explanation of a loop (as a whole), “the blame would fall on the person asking the question, not on our inability to answer it.” The second kind of response (Hanley, 2004, §5) is to deny that (all) causal loops are inexplicable. A second objection to causal loops, due to Mellor (1998, ch.12), is that in such loops the chances of events would fail to be related to their frequencies in accordance with the law of large numbers. Berkovitz (2001) and Dowe (2001) both argue that Mellor’s objection fails to establish the impossibility of causal loops. [ 24 ] Effingham (2020) considers—and rebuts—some additional objections to the possibility of causal loops.

4. Time and Change

Gödel (1949a [1990a])—in which Gödel presents models of Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity in which there exist CTC’s—can well be regarded as initiating the modern academic literature on time travel, in both philosophy and physics. In a companion paper, Gödel discusses the significance of his results for more general issues in the philosophy of time (Gödel 1949b [1990b]). For the succeeding half century, the time travel literature focussed predominantly on objections to the possibility (or probability) of time travel. More recently, however, there has been renewed interest in the connections between time travel and more general issues in the metaphysics of time and change. We examine some of these in the present section. [ 25 ]

The first thing that we need to do is set up the various metaphysical positions whose relationships with time travel will then be discussed. Consider two metaphysical questions:

• Are the past, present and future equally real?
• Is there an objective flow or passage of time, and an objective now?

We can label some views on the first question as follows. Eternalism is the view that past and future times, objects and events are just as real as the present time and present events and objects. Nowism is the view that only the present time and present events and objects exist. Now-and-then-ism is the view that the past and present exist but the future does not. We can also label some views on the second question. The A-theory answers in the affirmative: the flow of time and division of events into past (before now), present (now) and future (after now) are objective features of reality (as opposed to mere features of our experience). Furthermore, they are linked: the objective flow of time arises from the movement, through time, of the objective now (from the past towards the future). The B-theory answers in the negative: while we certainly experience now as special, and time as flowing, the B-theory denies that what is going on here is that we are detecting objective features of reality in a way that corresponds transparently to how those features are in themselves. The flow of time and the now are not objective features of reality; they are merely features of our experience. By combining answers to our first and second questions we arrive at positions on the metaphysics of time such as: [ 26 ]

• the block universe view: eternalism + B-theory
• the moving spotlight view: eternalism + A-theory
• the presentist view: nowism + A-theory
• the growing block view: now-and-then-ism + A-theory.

So much for positions on time itself. Now for some views on temporal objects: objects that exist in (and, in general, change over) time. Three-dimensionalism is the view that persons, tables and other temporal objects are three-dimensional entities. On this view, what you see in the mirror is a whole person. [ 27 ] Tomorrow, when you look again, you will see the whole person again. On this view, persons and other temporal objects are wholly present at every time at which they exist. Four-dimensionalism is the view that persons, tables and other temporal objects are four-dimensional entities, extending through three dimensions of space and one dimension of time. On this view, what you see in the mirror is not a whole person: it is just a three-dimensional temporal part of a person. Tomorrow, when you look again, you will see a different such temporal part. Say that an object persists through time if it is around at some time and still around at a later time. Three- and four-dimensionalists agree that (some) objects persist, but they differ over how objects persist. According to three-dimensionalists, objects persist by enduring : an object persists from t 1 to t 2 by being wholly present at t 1 and t 2 and every instant in between. According to four-dimensionalists, objects persist by perduring : an object persists from t 1 to t 2 by having temporal parts at t 1 and t 2 and every instant in between. Perduring can be usefully compared with being extended in space: a road extends from Melbourne to Sydney not by being wholly located at every point in between, but by having a spatial part at every point in between.

It is natural to combine three-dimensionalism with presentism and four-dimensionalism with the block universe view—but other combinations of views are certainly possible.

Gödel (1949b [1990b]) argues from the possibility of time travel (more precisely, from the existence of solutions to the field equations of General Relativity in which there exist CTC’s) to the B-theory: that is, to the conclusion that there is no objective flow or passage of time and no objective now. Gödel begins by reviewing an argument from Special Relativity to the B-theory: because the notion of simultaneity becomes a relative one in Special Relativity, there is no room for the idea of an objective succession of “nows”. He then notes that this argument is disrupted in the context of General Relativity, because in models of the latter theory to date, the presence of matter does allow recovery of an objectively distinguished series of “nows”. Gödel then proposes a new model (Gödel 1949a [1990a]) in which no such recovery is possible. (This is the model that contains CTC’s.) Finally, he addresses the issue of how one can infer anything about the nonexistence of an objective flow of time in our universe from the existence of a merely possible universe in which there is no objectively distinguished series of “nows”. His main response is that while it would not be straightforwardly contradictory to suppose that the existence of an objective flow of time depends on the particular, contingent arrangement and motion of matter in the world, this would nevertheless be unsatisfactory. Responses to Gödel have been of two main kinds. Some have objected to the claim that there is no objective flow of time in his model universe (e.g. Savitt (2005); see also Savitt (1994)). Others have objected to the attempt to transfer conclusions about that model universe to our own universe (e.g. Earman (1995, 197–200); for a partial response to Earman see Belot (2005, §3.4)). [ 28 ]

Earlier we posed two questions:

Gödel’s argument is related to the second question. Let’s turn now to the first question. Godfrey-Smith (1980, 72) writes “The metaphysical picture which underlies time travel talk is that of the block universe [i.e. eternalism, in the terminology of the present entry], in which the world is conceived as extended in time as it is in space.” In his report on the Analysis problem to which Godfrey-Smith’s paper is a response, Harrison (1980, 67) replies that he would like an argument in support of this assertion. Here is an argument: [ 29 ]

A fundamental requirement for the possibility of time travel is the existence of the destination of the journey. That is, a journey into the past or the future would have to presuppose that the past or future were somehow real. (Grey, 1999, 56)

Dowe (2000, 442–5) responds that the destination does not have to exist at the time of departure: it only has to exist at the time of arrival—and this is quite compatible with non-eternalist views. And Keller and Nelson (2001, 338) argue that time travel is compatible with presentism:

There is four-dimensional [i.e. eternalist, in the terminology of the present entry] time-travel if the appropriate sorts of events occur at the appropriate sorts of times; events like people hopping into time-machines and disappearing, people reappearing with the right sorts of memories, and so on. But the presentist can have just the same patterns of events happening at just the same times. Or at least, it can be the case on the presentist model that the right sorts of events will happen, or did happen, or are happening, at the rights sorts of times. If it suffices for four-dimensionalist time-travel that Jennifer disappears in 2054 and appears in 1985 with the right sorts of memories, then why shouldn’t it suffice for presentist time-travel that Jennifer will disappear in 2054, and that she did appear in 1985 with the right sorts of memories?

Sider (2005) responds that there is still a problem reconciling presentism with time travel conceived in Lewis’s way: that conception of time travel requires that personal time is similar to external time—but presentists have trouble allowing this. Further contributions to the debate whether presentism—and other versions of the A-theory—are compatible with time travel include Monton (2003), Daniels (2012), Hall (2014) and Wasserman (2018) on the side of compatibility, and Miller (2005), Slater (2005), Miller (2008), Hales (2010) and Markosian (2020) on the side of incompatibility.

Leibniz’s Law says that if x = y (i.e. x and y are identical—one and the same entity) then x and y have exactly the same properties. There is a superficial conflict between this principle of logic and the fact that things change. If Bill is at one time thin and at another time not so—and yet it is the very same person both times—it looks as though the very same entity (Bill) both possesses and fails to possess the property of being thin. Three-dimensionalists and four-dimensionalists respond to this problem in different ways. According to the four-dimensionalist, what is thin is not Bill (who is a four-dimensional entity) but certain temporal parts of Bill; and what is not thin are other temporal parts of Bill. So there is no single entity that both possesses and fails to possess the property of being thin. Three-dimensionalists have several options. One is to deny that there are such properties as ‘thin’ (simpliciter): there are only temporally relativised properties such as ‘thin at time t ’. In that case, while Bill at t 1 and Bill at t 2 are the very same entity—Bill is wholly present at each time—there is no single property that this one entity both possesses and fails to possess: Bill possesses the property ‘thin at t 1 ’ and lacks the property ‘thin at t 2 ’. [ 30 ]

Now consider the case of a time traveller Ben who encounters his younger self at time t . Suppose that the younger self is thin and the older self not so. The four-dimensionalist can accommodate this scenario easily. Just as before, what we have are two different three-dimensional parts of the same four-dimensional entity, one of which possesses the property ‘thin’ and the other of which does not. The three-dimensionalist, however, faces a problem. Even if we relativise properties to times, we still get the contradiction that Ben possesses the property ‘thin at t ’ and also lacks that very same property. [ 31 ] There are several possible options for the three-dimensionalist here. One is to relativise properties not to external times but to personal times (Horwich, 1975, 434–5); another is to relativise properties to spatial locations as well as to times (or simply to spacetime points). Sider (2001, 101–6) criticises both options (and others besides), concluding that time travel is incompatible with three-dimensionalism. Markosian (2004) responds to Sider’s argument; [ 32 ] Miller (2006) also responds to Sider and argues for the compatibility of time travel and endurantism; Gilmore (2007) seeks to weaken the case against endurantism by constructing analogous arguments against perdurantism. Simon (2005) finds problems with Sider’s arguments, but presents different arguments for the same conclusion; Effingham and Robson (2007) and Benovsky (2011) also offer new arguments for this conclusion. For further discussion see Wasserman (2018) and Effingham (2020). [ 33 ]

We have seen arguments to the conclusions that time travel is impossible, improbable and inexplicable. Here’s an argument to the conclusion that backwards time travel simply will not occur. If backwards time travel is ever going to occur, we would already have seen the time travellers—but we have seen none such. [ 34 ] The argument is a weak one. [ 35 ] For a start, it is perhaps conceivable that time travellers have already visited the Earth [ 36 ] —but even granting that they have not, this is still compatible with the future actuality of backwards time travel. First, it may be that time travel is very expensive, difficult or dangerous—or for some other reason quite rare—and that by the time it is available, our present period of history is insufficiently high on the list of interesting destinations. Second, it may be—and indeed existing proposals in the physics literature have this feature—that backwards time travel works by creating a CTC that lies entirely in the future: in this case, backwards time travel becomes possible after the creation of the CTC, but travel to a time earlier than the time at which the CTC is created is not possible. [ 37 ]

• Adams, Robert Merrihew, 1997, “Thisness and time travel”, Philosophia , 25: 407–15.
• Arntzenius, Frank, 2006, “Time travel: Double your fun”, Philosophy Compass , 1: 599–616. doi:10.1111/j.1747-9991.2006.00045.x
• Asimov, Isaac, 1995 [2003], Gold: The Final Science Fiction Collection , New York: Harper Collins.
• Baron, Sam and Colyvan, Mark, 2016, “Time enough for explanation”, Journal of Philosophy , 113: 61–88.
• Belot, Gordon, 2005, “Dust, time and symmetry”, British Journal for the Philosophy of Science , 56: 255–91.
• Benovsky, Jiri, 2011, “Endurance and time travel”, Kriterion , 24: 65–72.
• Berkovitz, Joseph, 2001, “On chance in causal loops”, Mind , 110: 1–23.
• Black, Max, 1956, “Why cannot an effect precede its cause?”, Analysis , 16: 49–58.
• Brier, Bob, 1973, “Magicians, alarm clocks, and backward causation”, Southern Journal of Philosophy , 11: 359–64.
• Carlson, Erik, 2005, “A new time travel paradox resolved”, Philosophia , 33: 263–73.
• Carroll, John W., 2010, “Context, conditionals, fatalism, time travel, and freedom”, in Time and Identity , Joseph Keim Campbell, Michael O’Rourke, and Harry S. Silverstein, eds., Cambridge MA: MIT Press, 79–93.
• Craig, William L., 1997, “Adams on actualism and presentism”, Philosophia , 25: 401–5.
• Daniels, Paul R., 2012, “Back to the present: Defending presentist time travel”, Disputatio , 4: 469–84.
• Deutsch, David and Lockwood, Michael, 1994, “The quantum physics of time travel”, Scientific American , 270(3): 50–6.
• Dowe, Phil, 2000, “The case for time travel”, Philosophy , 75: 441–51.
• –––, 2001, “Causal loops and the independence of causal facts”, Philosophy of Science , 68: S89–S97.
• –––, 2003, “The coincidences of time travel”, Philosophy of Science , 70: 574–89.
• Dummett, Michael, 1964, “Bringing about the past”, Philosophical Review , 73: 338–59.
• Dwyer, Larry, 1977, “How to affect, but not change, the past”, Southern Journal of Philosophy , 15: 383–5.
• Earman, John, 1995, Bangs, Crunches, Whimpers, and Shrieks: Singularities and Acausalities in Relativistic Spacetimes , New York: Oxford University Press.
• Effingham, Nikk, 2020, Time Travel: Probability and Impossibility , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Effingham, Nikk and Robson, Jon, 2007, “A mereological challenge to endurantism”, Australasian Journal of Philosophy , 85: 633–40.
• Ehring, Douglas, 1997, “Personal identity and time travel”, Philosophical Studies , 52: 427–33.
• Elliott, Katrina, 2019, “How to Know That Time Travel Is Unlikely Without Knowing Why”, Pacific Philosophical Quarterly , 100: 90–113.
• Fulmer, Gilbert, 1980, “Understanding time travel”, Southwestern Journal of Philosophy , 11: 151–6.
• Gilmore, Cody, 2007, “Time travel, coinciding objects, and persistence”, in Oxford Studies in Metaphysics , Dean W. Zimmerman, ed., Oxford: Clarendon Press, vol. 3, 177–98.
• Goddu, G.C., 2003, “Time travel and changing the past (or how to kill yourself and live to tell the tale)”, Ratio , 16: 16–32.
• –––, 2007, “Banana peels and time travel”, Dialectica , 61: 559–72.
• Gödel, Kurt, 1949a [1990a], “An example of a new type of cosmological solutions of Einstein’s field equations of gravitation”, in Kurt Gödel: Collected Works (Volume II), Solomon Feferman, et al. (eds.), New York: Oxford University Press, 190–8; originally published in Reviews of Modern Physics , 21 (1949): 447–450.
• –––, 1949b [1990b], “A remark about the relationship between relativity theory and idealistic philosophy”, in Kurt Gödel: Collected Works (Volume II), Solomon Feferman, et al. (eds.), New York: Oxford University Press, 202–7; originally published in P. Schilpp (ed.), Albert Einstein: Philosopher-Scientist , La Salle: Open Court, 1949, 555–562.
• Godfrey-Smith, William, 1980, “Travelling in time”, Analysis , 40: 72–3.
• Gorovitz, Samuel, 1964, “Leaving the past alone”, Philosophical Review , 73: 360–71.
• Grey, William, 1999, “Troubles with time travel”, Philosophy , 74: 55–70.
• Hafele, J. C. and Keating, Richard E., 1972a, “Around-the-world atomic clocks: Observed relativistic time gains”, Science , 177: 168–70.
• –––, 1972b, “Around-the-world atomic clocks: Predicted relativistic time gains”, Science , 177: 166–8.
• Hales, Steven D., 2010, “No time travel for presentists”, Logos & Episteme , 1: 353–60.
• Hall, Thomas, 2014, “In Defense of the Compossibility of Presentism and Time Travel”, Logos & Episteme , 2: 141–59.
• Hanley, Richard, 2004, “No end in sight: Causal loops in philosophy, physics and fiction”, Synthese , 141: 123–52.
• Harrison, Jonathan, 1980, “Report on analysis ‘problem’ no. 18”, Analysis , 40: 65–9.
• Hawking, S.W., 1992, “Chronology protection conjecture”, Physical Review D , 46: 603–11.
• Holt, Dennis Charles, 1981, “Time travel: The time discrepancy paradox”, Philosophical Investigations , 4: 1–16.
• Horacek, David, 2005, “Time travel in indeterministic worlds”, Monist (Special Issue on Time Travel), 88: 423–36.
• Horwich, Paul, 1975, “On some alleged paradoxes of time travel”, Journal of Philosophy , 72: 432–44.
• –––, 1987, Asymmetries in Time: Problems in the Philosophy of Science , Cambridge MA: MIT Press.
• Ismael, J., 2003, “Closed causal loops and the bilking argument”, Synthese , 136: 305–20.
• Keller, Simon and Nelson, Michael, 2001, “Presentists should believe in time-travel”, Australasian Journal of Philosophy , 79: 333–45.
• Kiourti, Ira, 2008, “Killing baby Suzy”, Philosophical Studies , 139: 343–52.
• Le Poidevin, Robin, 2003, Travels in Four Dimensions: The Enigmas of Space and Time , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• –––, 2005, “The Cheshire Cat problem and other spatial obstacles to backwards time travel”, Monist (Special Issue on Time Travel), 88: 336–52.
• Lewis, David, 1976, “The paradoxes of time travel”, American Philosophical Quarterly , 13: 145–52.
• Loss, Roberto, 2015, “How to Change the Past in One-Dimensional Time”, Pacific Philosophical Quarterly , 96: 1–11.
• Luminet, Jean-Pierre, 2011, “Time, topology, and the twin paradox”, in The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Time , Craig Callender (ed.), Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199298204.003.0018
• Markosian, Ned, 2004, “Two arguments from Sider’s Four-Dimensionalism ”, Philosophy and Phenomenological Research , 68: 665–73.
• Markosian, Ned, 2020, “The Dynamic Theory of Time and Time Travel to the Past”, Disputatio , 12: 137–65.
• Maudlin, Tim, 2012, Philosophy of Physics: Space and Time , Princeton: Princeton University Press.
• Meiland, Jack W., 1974, “A two-dimensional passage model of time for time travel”, Philosophical Studies , 26: 153–73.
• Mellor, D.H., 1998, Real Time II , London: Routledge.
• Meyer, Ulrich, 2012, “Explaining causal loops”, Analysis , 72: 259–64.
• Miller, Kristie, 2005, “Time travel and the open future”, Disputatio , 1: 223–32.
• –––, 2006, “Travelling in time: How to wholly exist in two places at the same time”, Canadian Journal of Philosophy , 36: 309–34.
• –––, 2008, “Backwards causation, time, and the open future”, Metaphysica , 9: 173–91.
• Monton, Bradley, 2003, “Presentists can believe in closed timelike curves”, Analysis , 63: 199–202.
• –––, 2009, “Time travel without causal loops”, Philosophical Quarterly , 59: 54–67.
• Nerlich, Graham, 1981, “Can time be finite?”, Pacific Philosophical Quarterly , 62: 227–39.
• Ney, S.E., 2000, “Are grandfathers an endangered species?”, Journal of Philosophical Research , 25: 311–21.
• Price, Huw, 1996, Time’s Arrow & Archimedes’ Point: New Directions for the Physics of Time , New York: Oxford University Press.
• Putnam, Hilary, 1975, “It ain’t necessarily so”, in Mathematics, Matter and Method , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, vol. 1 of Philosophical Papers , 237–49.
• Reinganum, Marc R., 1986, “Is time travel impossible? A financial proof”, Journal of Portfolio Management , 13: 10–2.
• Riggs, Peter J., 1991, “A critique of Mellor’s argument against ‘backwards’ causation”, British Journal for the Philosophy of Science , 42: 75–86.
• –––, 1997, “The principal paradox of time travel”, Ratio , 10: 48–64.
• Savitt, Steven, 1994, “The replacement of time”, Australasian Journal of Philosophy , 74: 463–73.
• –––, 2005, “Time travel and becoming”, Monist (Special Issue on Time Travel), 88: 413–22.
• Sider, Theodore, 2001, Four-Dimensionalism: An Ontology of Persistence and Time , Oxford: Clarendon Press.
• –––, 2002, “Time travel, coincidences and counterfactuals”, Philosophical Studies , 110: 115–38.
• –––, 2004, “Replies to Gallois, Hirsch and Markosian”, Philosophy and Phenomenological Research , 68: 674–87.
• –––, 2005, “Traveling in A- and B- time”, Monist (Special Issue on Time Travel), 88: 329–35.
• Simon, Jonathan, 2005, “Is time travel a problem for the three-dimensionalist?”, Monist (Special Issue on Time Travel), 88: 353–61.
• Slater, Matthew H., 2005, “The necessity of time travel (on pain of indeterminacy)”, Monist (Special Issue on Time Travel), 88: 362–9.
• Smart, J.J.C., 1963, “Is time travel possible?”, Journal of Philosophy , 60: 237–41.
• Smeenk, Chris and Wüthrich, Christian, 2011, “Time travel and time machines”, in The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Time , Craig Callender (ed.), Oxford: Oxford University Press, online ed. doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199298204.003.0021
• Smith, Joseph Wayne, 1985, “Time travel and backward causation”, Cogito , 3: 57–67.
• Smith, Nicholas J.J., 1997, “Bananas enough for time travel?”, British Journal for the Philosophy of Science , 48: 363–89.
• –––, 1998, “The problems of backward time travel”, Endeavour , 22(4): 156–8.
• –––, 2004, “Review of Robin Le Poidevin Travels in Four Dimensions: The Enigmas of Space and Time ”, Australasian Journal of Philosophy , 82: 527–30.
• –––, 2005, “Why would time travellers try to kill their younger selves?”, Monist (Special Issue on Time Travel), 88: 388–95.
• –––, 2011, “Inconsistency in the A-theory”, Philosophical Studies , 156: 231–47.
• –––, 2015, “Why time travellers (still) cannot change the past”, Revista Portuguesa de Filosofia , 71: 677–94.
• –––, 2017, “I’d do anything to change the past (but I can’t do ‘that’)”, American Philosophical Quarterly , 54: 153–68.
• van Inwagen, Peter, 2010, “Changing the past”, in Oxford Studies in Metaphysics (Volume 5), Dean W. Zimmerman (ed.), Oxford: Oxford University Press, 3–28.
• Vihvelin, Kadri, 1996, “What time travelers cannot do”, Philosophical Studies , 81: 315–30.
• Vranas, Peter B.M., 2005, “Do cry over spilt milk: Possibly you can change the past”, Monist (Special Issue on Time Travel), 88: 370–87.
• –––, 2009, “Can I kill my younger self? Time travel and the retrosuicide paradox”, Pacific Philosophical Quarterly , 90: 520–34.
• –––, 2010, “What time travelers may be able to do”, Philosophical Studies , 150: 115–21.
• Wasserman, Ryan, 2018, Paradoxes of Time Travel , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Williams, Donald C., 1951, “The myth of passage”, Journal of Philosophy , 48: 457–72.
• Wright, John, 2006, “Personal identity, fission and time travel”, Philosophia , 34: 129–42.
• Yourgrau, Palle, 1999, Gödel Meets Einstein: Time Travel in the Gödel Universe , Chicago: Open Court.

How to cite this entry . Preview the PDF version of this entry at the Friends of the SEP Society . Look up topics and thinkers related to this entry at the Internet Philosophy Ontology Project (InPhO). Enhanced bibliography for this entry at PhilPapers , with links to its database.

• Time Travel , entry by Joel Hunter (Truckee Meadows Community College) in the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy .

causation: backward | free will: divine foreknowledge and | identity: over time | location and mereology | temporal parts | time | time machines | time travel: and modern physics

Copyright © 2024 by Nicholas J.J. Smith < nicholas . smith @ sydney . edu . au >

• Accessibility

Support SEP

Mirror sites.

View this site from another server:

• Info about mirror sites

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is copyright © 2024 by The Metaphysics Research Lab , Department of Philosophy, Stanford University

Library of Congress Catalog Data: ISSN 1095-5054

Time Travel: Observing Cosmic History

By observing light from faraway cosmic objects, the Hubble Space Telescope is like a time machine. Light takes time to reach Hubble, because it travels great distances. That means images captured by Hubble today, show what the objects looked like years ago!

The Hubble Space Telescope is many things. It’s an observatory, a satellite, and an icon of cultural and scientific significance – but perhaps most interestingly, Hubble is also a time machine.

Hubble isn’t that far away, locked in a low-Earth orbit just a few hundred miles up that takes about 90 minutes to complete. But with its position just above Earth’s murky atmosphere, Hubble’s transformative view of our universe literally lets us witness our universe’s past.  It allows us to effectively travel back in time.

How does that work? After all, Hubble doesn’t travel beyond our solar system, or even our home planet’s gravity. It certainly doesn’t have any sci-fi elements you might find in Doctor Who or Back to the Future.

Light Travel

The answer is simply light.

The term “light-year” shows up a lot in astronomy. This is a measure of distance that means exactly what it says – the distance that light travels in one year. Given that the speed of light is 186,000 miles (299,000 kilometers) per second, light can cover some serious ground over the course of 365 days. To be precise, almost 6 trillion miles (9.5 trillion kilometers)!

Traveling Back in Time: 8 minutes

Hubble works by gathering light from objects in our universe – some as close as our Moon, and some as distant as galaxy clusters that are billions of light-years away. All that light takes time to reach the telescope, just as it takes time for light to travel from its source to our eyes. For example, our Sun is located about 93 million miles (150 million kilometers) from Earth. That means that it takes roughly eight minutes for its light to reach us here on our planet, so when we look at the Sun (though directly is never recommended!) we see it exactly as it was eight minutes in the past.

Cosmically speaking, the 93 million miles between us and the Sun are nothing. We orbit around just one of billions of stars in the Milky Way Galaxy, which is one of countless trillions of galaxies in the universe.

With that in mind, time travel gets more intense when Hubble observes objects beyond our star system.

Traveling Back in Time: 4 years

Aside from our Sun, the next closest star to us is named Proxima Centauri. It’s about four light-years away, which makes it a close neighbor on a universal scale. But even with Hubble’s sharp, powerful vision, Proxima Centauri remains a point-like object – demonstrating our universe’s unfathomably large size.

Traveling Back in Time: 700 years

Another stellar target of Hubble’s is named Betelgeuse, which is about 700 light-years from Earth. Again, this means that when Hubble looks at Betelgeuse, the star appears exactly as it was 700 years ago. As one of the brightest stars in our sky, astronomers believe it’s likely that even the earliest humans knew of it, as this star appears in stories from several cultures.

This red supergiant star began to dim significantly in the fall of 2019, losing about 60% of its brightness within months. But by April 2020, its regular brightness returned. Hubble studied Betelgeuse and found out that the star “blew its top” – it went through a surface mass ejection, in which the star spewed out a large amount of its surface material into space. When that material in space cooled down, it became a dust cloud that temporarily blocked some of the star’s light.

Hubble’s unique ability to observe in ultraviolet light helped reveal the details of this dimming event and its aftermath. In this range of light, Hubble can better observe the hot layers of atmosphere above a star’s surface.

The telescope continues to be the go-to observatory for scientists who study Betelgeuse. Because it’s taken this long for the light from Betelgeuse to reach us, only in very recent history have we witnessed a cosmic event unfolding that really occurred about 700 years ago!

Scientists also believe that Betelgeuse is on the verge of going supernova – dying in an explosive event. In fact, it may have already done so, but the light from the explosion still hasn’t reached us. There’s a good chance that Betelgeuse no longer exists, though we can still see it today from Earth.

Traveling Back in Time: 6,500 years

Nebulae are clouds of gas and dust where stars are birthed, or the remnants of a dead or dying star itself. These beautiful, ethereal cosmic objects are the subject of some of Hubble’s most iconic images, but they can also teach us more about how our universe behaves and evolves.

For example, a favorite target for Hubble is the Crab Nebula, located about 6,500 light-years away. There are records from 1054 CE written by Chinese astronomers noting the new presence of a shockingly bright “guest” star in the sky, visible even during the daytime. Turns out, they actually saw a supernova – a star’s explosive death – which became the Crab Nebula, made up by the remnants of this violent event. Of course, those Chinese astronomers witnessed a supernova explosion that occurred about 5446 BCE, but it took the light from the explosion 6,500 years to reach Earth in the year 1054.

Traveling Back in Time: 2.5 million years

When Hubble looks beyond our own galaxy, we can watch cosmic history unfold over eons.

The Andromeda Galaxy is a whopping 2.5 million light-years away, but that’s just the closest major galaxy to us here in the Milky Way. Observing Andromeda is like staring into a vision from 2.5 million years ago – back during the Paleolithic period on Earth, when very early humans existed.

And if Andromeda is the closest major galaxy to us, it’s difficult to comprehend just how far the light from the most distant observed galaxies has traveled.

Traveling Back in Time: 12.9 billion years

Another Hubble record is for observing the most distant individual star ever detected, named Earendel. This faraway star emitted its light within the first billion years of the universe, which is about 13.8 billion years old, so it took quite a while to reach Hubble! In fact, that observation was only made possible by nature’s magnifying glass – an astronomical phenomenon known as gravitational lensing. When a massive cosmic object has enough gravity, its gravitational field can magnify and bend light coming from objects located behind it. The gravity of a galaxy cluster located between Hubble and Earendel magnified the star’s light, making it detectable.  The type of star that Earendel seems to be typically have brief lives, only surviving about half a billion years. That means Earendel has ceased to exist for over 12 billion years, yet we are able to look back in time and watch Earendel during its short life.

Traveling Back in Time: 13.4 billion years

Perhaps some of Hubble’s most legendary observations are its deep field images, which collect light from thousands of galaxies that are billions of light-years away.

With this type of imagery, we can better understand how our universe changes over time by puzzling out how galaxies evolve. The farther back we look with Hubble, the closer we get to the the big bang, when the universe began – so the most distant galaxies observed by Hubble often appear to us as the “youngest” ones – giving us a sneak peek at the universe in its infancy. Because these galaxies emitted their light when they were young, we get to witness them in their early stages. These early galaxies often appear simpler and smaller than the grandiose spiral galaxies and merged galaxies we see closer to us in distance, and therefore in time. These young galaxies are actually old galaxies now as they have evolved over the time this light has taken to reach us.

Hubble’s farthest observation is of a galaxy named GN-z11, observed as it was 13.4 billion years in the past! This places it within just 400 million years of the big bang itself.

Watching Our Universe Over Time

Observations of the most distant objects, like GN-z11 and Earendel, give astronomers exciting insight into the environment of our early universe. The light we see literally traveled from all the way back then!

Our universe remains mysterious, mind-bendingly large, and ever-expanding, but by gathering light from near and far – from the recent past to the dawn of the universe itself – Hubble helps answer questions about where we are and how the universe works.

At its core, astronomy is really just archaeology. Cosmic objects give off light, letting us learn more about their lives. It can take a long, long time for light to reach Hubble – just one telescope orbiting just one planet in just one solar system in just one galaxy. Scientists use Hubble like the time machine that it is to piece together the history and mystery of the cosmos, giving us all a glimpse right up to the edge of the universe – and time itself.

Explore More Hubble

The Lost Universe

NASA's Hubble Space Telescope has vanished from Earth’s timeline. Only an ambitious crew of adventurers can uncover what was lost. Are you up to the challenge?

Hubble Science Highlights

Hubble has affected every area of astronomy. Its most notable scientific discoveries reflect the broad range of research and the breakthroughs it has achieved.

Hubble's Cultural Impact

Even if you don't know anything about the Hubble Space Telescope, its pictures have been a part of your life.

What is Hubble Observing?

See the area of sky Hubble is currently investigating or explore its upcoming and past targets.

Hubble E-books

Investigate the mysteries of the universe with Hubble. Learn Hubble's history and dive deeper into its discoveries by downloading our e-books.

• [ May 9, 2024 ] Moon Phases: What They Are & How They Work Solar System
• [ April 3, 2024 ] Giordano Bruno Quotes About Astronomy Astronomy Lists
• [ March 28, 2024 ] Shakespeare Quotes: Comets, Meteors and Shooting Stars Astronomy Lists
• [ March 28, 2024 ] Shakespearean Quotes About The Moon Astronomy Lists
• [ November 30, 2022 ] The Night Sky This Month: December 2022 Night Sky

5 Bizarre Paradoxes Of Time Travel Explained

December 20, 2014 James Miller Astronomy Lists , Time Travel 58

There is nothing in Einstein’s theories of relativity to rule out time travel , although the very notion of traveling to the past violates one of the most fundamental premises of physics, that of causality. With the laws of cause and effect out the window, there naturally arises a number of inconsistencies associated with time travel, and listed here are some of those paradoxes which have given both scientists and time travel movie buffs alike more than a few sleepless nights over the years.

Types of Temporal Paradoxes

The time travel paradoxes that follow fall into two broad categories:

1) Closed Causal Loops , such as the Predestination Paradox and the Bootstrap Paradox, which involve a self-existing time loop in which cause and effect run in a repeating circle, but is also internally consistent with the timeline’s history.

2) Consistency Paradoxes , such as the Grandfather Paradox and other similar variants such as The Hitler paradox, and Polchinski’s Paradox, which generate a number of timeline inconsistencies related to the possibility of altering the past.

1: Predestination Paradox

A Predestination Paradox occurs when the actions of a person traveling back in time become part of past events, and may ultimately cause the event he is trying to prevent to take place. The result is a ‘temporal causality loop’ in which Event 1 in the past influences Event 2 in the future (time travel to the past) which then causes Event 1 to occur.

This circular loop of events ensures that history is not altered by the time traveler, and that any attempts to stop something from happening in the past will simply lead to the cause itself, instead of stopping it. Predestination paradoxes suggest that things are always destined to turn out the same way and that whatever has happened must happen.

Sound complicated? Imagine that your lover dies in a hit-and-run car accident, and you travel back in time to save her from her fate, only to find that on your way to the accident you are the one who accidentally runs her over. Your attempt to change the past has therefore resulted in a predestination paradox. One way of dealing with this type of paradox is to assume that the version of events you have experienced are already built into a self-consistent version of reality, and that by trying to alter the past you will only end up fulfilling your role in creating an event in history, not altering it.

– Cinema Treatment

In The Time Machine (2002) movie, for instance, Dr. Alexander Hartdegen witnesses his fiancee being killed by a mugger, leading him to build a time machine to travel back in time to save her from her fate. His subsequent attempts to save her fail, though, leading him to conclude that “I could come back a thousand times… and see her die a thousand ways.” After then traveling centuries into the future to see if a solution has been found to the temporal problem, Hartdegen is told by the Über-Morlock:

“You built your time machine because of Emma’s death. If she had lived, it would never have existed, so how could you use your machine to go back and save her? You are the inescapable result of your tragedy, just as I am the inescapable result of you .”

• Movies : Examples of predestination paradoxes in the movies include 12 Monkeys (1995), TimeCrimes (2007), The Time Traveler’s Wife (2009), and Predestination (2014).
• Books : An example of a predestination paradox in a book is Phoebe Fortune and the Pre-destination Paradox by M.S. Crook.

2: Bootstrap Paradox

A Bootstrap Paradox is a type of paradox in which an object, person, or piece of information sent back in time results in an infinite loop where the object has no discernible origin, and exists without ever being created. It is also known as an Ontological Paradox, as ontology is a branch of philosophy concerned with the nature of being or existence.

– Information : George Lucas traveling back in time and giving himself the scripts for the Star War movies which he then goes on to direct and gain great fame for would create a bootstrap paradox involving information, as the scripts have no true point of creation or origin.

– Person : A bootstrap paradox involving a person could be, say, a 20-year-old male time traveler who goes back 21 years, meets a woman, has an affair, and returns home three months later without knowing the woman was pregnant. Her child grows up to be the 20-year-old time traveler, who travels back 21 years through time, meets a woman, and so on. American science fiction writer Robert Heinlein wrote a strange short story involving a sexual paradox in his 1959 classic “All You Zombies.”

These ontological paradoxes imply that the future, present, and past are not defined, thus giving scientists an obvious problem on how to then pinpoint the “origin” of anything, a word customarily referring to the past, but now rendered meaningless. Further questions arise as to how the object/data was created, and by whom. Nevertheless, Einstein’s field equations allow for the possibility of closed time loops, with Kip Thorne the first theoretical physicist to recognize traversable wormholes and backward time travel as being theoretically possible under certain conditions.

• Movies : Examples of bootstrap paradoxes in the movies include Somewhere in Time (1980), Bill and Ted’s Excellent Adventure (1989), the Terminator movies, and Time Lapse (2014). The Netflix series Dark (2017-19) also features a book called ‘A Journey Through Time’ which presents another classic example of a bootstrap paradox.
• Books : Examples of bootstrap paradoxes in books include Michael Moorcock’s ‘Behold The Man’, Tim Powers’ The Anubis Gates, and Heinlein’s “By His Bootstraps”

3: Grandfather Paradox

The Grandfather Paradox concerns ‘self-inconsistent solutions’ to a timeline’s history caused by traveling back in time. For example, if you traveled to the past and killed your grandfather, you would never have been born and would not have been able to travel to the past – a paradox.

Let’s say you did decide to kill your grandfather because he created a dynasty that ruined the world. You figure if you knock him off before he meets your grandmother then the whole family line (including you) will vanish and the world will be a better place. According to theoretical physicists, the situation could play out as follows:

– Timeline protection hypothesis: You pop back in time, walk up to him, and point a revolver at his head. You pull the trigger but the gun fails to fire. Click! Click! Click! The bullets in the chamber have dents in the firing caps. You point the gun elsewhere and pull the trigger. Bang! Point it at your grandfather.. Click! Click! Click! So you try another method to kill him, but that only leads to scars that in later life he attributed to the world’s worst mugger. You can do many things as long as they’re not fatal until you are chased off by a policeman.

– Multiple universes hypothesis: You pop back in time, walk up to him, and point a revolver at his head. You pull the trigger and Boom! The deed is done. You return to the “present,” but you never existed here. Everything about you has been erased, including your family, friends, home, possessions, bank account, and history. You’ve entered a timeline where you never existed. Scientists entertain the possibility that you have now created an alternate timeline or entered a parallel universe.

• Movies : Example of the Grandfather Paradox in movies include Back to the Future (1985), Back to the Future Part II (1989), and Back to the Future Part III (1990).
• Books : Example of the Grandfather Paradox in books include Dr. Quantum in the Grandfather Paradox by Fred Alan Wolf , The Grandfather Paradox by Steven Burgauer, and Future Times Three (1944) by René Barjavel, the very first treatment of a grandfather paradox in a novel.

4: Let’s Kill Hitler Paradox

Similar to the Grandfather Paradox which paradoxically prevents your own birth, the Killing Hitler paradox erases your own reason for going back in time to kill him. Furthermore, while killing Grandpa might have a limited “butterfly effect,” killing Hitler would have far-reaching consequences for everyone in the world, even if only for the fact you studied him in school.

The paradox itself arises from the idea that if you were successful, then there would be no reason to time travel in the first place. If you killed Hitler then none of his actions would trickle down through history and cause you to want to make the attempt.

• Movies/Shows : By far the best treatment for this notion occurred in a Twilight Zone episode called Cradle of Darkness which sums up the difficulties involved in trying to change history, with another being an episode of Dr Who called ‘Let’s Kill Hitler’.
• Books : Examples of the Let’s Kill Hitler Paradox in books include How to Kill Hitler: A Guide For Time Travelers by Andrew Stanek, and the graphic novel I Killed Adolf Hitler by Jason.

5: Polchinski’s Paradox

American theoretical physicist Joseph Polchinski proposed a time paradox scenario in which a billiard ball enters a wormhole, and emerges out the other end in the past just in time to collide with its younger version and stop it from going into the wormhole in the first place.

Polchinski’s paradox is taken seriously by physicists, as there is nothing in Einstein’s General Relativity to rule out the possibility of time travel, closed time-like curves (CTCs), or tunnels through space-time. Furthermore, it has the advantage of being based upon the laws of motion, without having to refer to the indeterministic concept of free will, and so presents a better research method for scientists to think about the paradox. When Joseph Polchinski proposed the paradox, he had Novikov’s Self-Consistency Principle in mind, which basically states that while time travel is possible, time paradoxes are forbidden.

However, a number of solutions have been formulated to avoid the inconsistencies Polchinski suggested, which essentially involves the billiard ball delivering a blow that changes its younger version’s course, but not enough to stop it from entering the wormhole. This solution is related to the ‘timeline-protection hypothesis’ which states that a probability distortion would occur in order to prevent a paradox from happening. This also helps explain why if you tried to time travel and murder your grandfather, something will always happen to make that impossible, thus preserving a consistent version of history.

• Books:  Paradoxes of Time Travel by Ryan Wasserman is a wide-ranging exploration of time and time travel, including Polchinski’s Paradox.

Are Self-Fulfilling Prophecies Paradoxes?

A self-fulfilling prophecy is only a causality loop when the prophecy is truly known to happen and events in the future cause effects in the past, otherwise the phenomenon is not so much a paradox as a case of cause and effect.  Say,  for instance, an authority figure states that something is inevitable, proper, and true, convincing everyone through persuasive style. People, completely convinced through rhetoric, begin to behave as if the prediction were already true, and consequently bring it about through their actions. This might be seen best by an example where someone convincingly states:

“High-speed Magnetic Levitation Trains will dominate as the best form of transportation from the 21st Century onward.”

Jet travel, relying on diminishing fuel supplies, will be reserved for ocean crossing, and local flights will be a thing of the past. People now start planning on building networks of high-speed trains that run on electricity. Infrastructure gears up to supply the needed parts and the prediction becomes true not because it was truly inevitable (though it is a smart idea), but because people behaved as if it were true.

It even works on a smaller scale – the scale of individuals. The basic methodology for all those “self-help” books out in the world is that if you modify your thinking that you are successful (money, career, dating, etc.), then with the strengthening of that belief you start to behave like a successful person. People begin to notice and start to treat you like a successful person; it is a reinforcement/feedback loop and you actually become successful by behaving as if you were.

Are Time Paradoxes Inevitable?

The Butterfly Effect is a reference to Chaos Theory where seemingly trivial changes can have huge cascade reactions over long periods of time. Consequently, the Timeline corruption hypothesis states that time paradoxes are an unavoidable consequence of time travel, and even insignificant changes may be enough to alter history completely.

In one story, a paleontologist, with the help of a time travel device, travels back to the Jurassic Period to get photographs of Stegosaurus, Brachiosaurus, Ceratosaurus, and Allosaurus amongst other dinosaurs. He knows he can’t take samples so he just takes magnificent pictures from the fixed platform that is positioned precisely to not change anything about the environment. His assistant is about to pick a long blade of grass, but he stops him and explains how nothing must change because of their presence. They finish what they are doing and return to the present, but everything is gone. They reappear in a wild world with no humans and no signs that they ever existed. They fall to the floor of their platform, the only man-made thing in the whole world, and lament “Why? We didn’t change anything!” And there on the heel of the scientist’s shoe is a crushed butterfly.

The Butterfly Effect is also a movie, starring Ashton Kutcher as Evan Treborn and Amy Smart as Kayleigh Miller, where a troubled man has had blackouts during his youth, later explained by him traveling back into his own past and taking charge of his younger body briefly. The movie explores the issue of changing the timeline and how unintended consequences can propagate.

Scientists eager to avoid the paradoxes presented by time travel have come up with a number of ingenious ways in which to present a more consistent version of reality, some of which have been touched upon here,  including:

• The Solution: time travel is impossible because of the very paradox it creates.
• Self-healing hypothesis: successfully altering events in the past will set off another set of events which will cause the present to remain the same.
• The Multiverse or “many-worlds” hypothesis: an alternate parallel universe or timeline is created each time an event is altered in the past.
• Erased timeline hypothesis : a person traveling to the past would exist in the new timeline, but have their own timeline erased.

Related Posts

© Copyright 2023 Astronomy Trek

Time travel is theoretically possible, calculations show. But that doesn't mean you could change the past.

• Time travel is possible based on the laws of physics, according to researchers.
• But time-travelers wouldn't be able to alter the past in a measurable way, they say. 
• And the future would essentially stay the same, according to the reseachers. 

Imagine you could hop into a time machine, press a button, and journey back to 2019, before the novel coronavirus made the leap from animals to humans.  

What if you could find and isolate patient zero? Theoretically, the COVID-19 pandemic wouldn't happen, right? 

Not quite, because then future-you wouldn't have decided to time travel in the first place.

For decades, physicists have been studying and debating versions of this paradox: If we could travel back in time and change the past, what would happen to the future?

A 2020 study offered a potential answer: Nothing.

"Events readjust around anything that could cause a paradox, so the paradox does not happen," Germain Tobar, the study's author previously told IFLScience .

Tobar's work, published in the peer-reviewed journal Classical and Quantum Gravity in September 2020, suggests that according to the rules of theoretical physics, anything you tried to change in the past would be corrected by subsequent events.

Related stories

Put simply: It's theoretically possible to go back in time, but you couldn't change history.

The grandfather paradox

Physicists have considered time travel to be theoretically possible since Albert Einstein came up with his theory of relativity. Einstein's calculations suggest it's possible for an object in our universe to travel through space and time in a circular direction, eventually ending up at a point on its journey where it's been before – a path called a closed time-like curve.

Still, physicists continue to struggle with scenarios like the coronavirus example above, in which time-travelers alter events that already happened. The most famous example is known as the grandfather paradox: Say a time-traveler goes back to the past and kills a younger version of his or her grandfather. The grandfather then wouldn't have any children, erasing the time-traveler's parents and, of course, the time-traveler, too. But then who would kill Grandpa?

A take on this paradox appears in the movie "Back to the Future," when Marty McFly almost stops his parents from meeting in the past – potentially causing himself to disappear. 

To address the paradox, Tobar and his supervisor, Dr. Fabio Costa, used the "billiard-ball model," which imagines cause and effect as a series of colliding billiard balls, and a circular pool table as a closed time-like curve.

Imagine a bunch of billiard balls laid out across that circular table. If you push one ball from position X, it bangs around the table, hitting others in a particular pattern. 

The researchers calculated that even if you mess with the ball's pattern at some point in its journey, future interactions with other balls can correct its path, leading it to come back to the same position and speed that it would have had you not interfered.

"Regardless of the choice, the ball will fall into the same place," Dr Yasunori Nomura, a theoretical physicist at UC Berkeley, previously told Insider.

Tobar's model, in other words, says you could travel back in time, but you couldn't change how events unfolded significantly enough to alter the future, Nomura said. Applied to the grandfather paradox, then, this would mean that something would always get in the way of your attempt to kill your grandfather. Or at least by the time he did die, your grandmother would already be pregnant with your mother. 

Back to the coronavirus example. Let's say you were to travel back to 2019 and intervene in patient zero's life. According to Tobar's line of thinking, the pandemic would still happen somehow.

"You might try and stop patient zero from becoming infected, but in doing so you would catch the virus and become patient zero, or someone else would," Tobar said, according to Australia's University of Queensland , where Tobar graduated from. 

Nomura said that although the model is too simple to represent the full range of cause and effect in our universe, it's a good starting point for future physicists.  

Watch: There are 2 types of time travel and physicists agree that one of them is possible

• Main content

Matador Original Series

10 Key Destinations For The Historical Time Traveler

Two hundred years ago a traveler had to wait months to traverse oceans. We now have the means to wake up in New York and fall asleep in Sydney, all in the same day.

The trend: travel is becoming exponentially more accessible to the common man.

But the tradeoff is that culture and history are being lost. Remote islanders maintain their outdated tribal customs merely to get a buck from the nearest walking wallet with a camera. Cities that in ancient times were considered quaint and romantic have become nothing more than identical concrete jungles.

We’re losing the remnants of human history with each passing day – why not find a means to time travel for leisure? Where would you go if you had a weekend in any city in any century?

1. Rome, Height of the Empire

No one in living memory has ever really seen the Colosseum. Whatever your religious beliefs, there used to be gods in that city; watching over the empire from their marbled countenance, and ensuring trade on one of the first greatest centers of business in the western world: the Roman Forum.

Imagine being able to walk down the epitome of civilization; they didn’t call the period after Christianity spread and the empire fell The Dark Ages for no good reason. ..

2. Kyoto, 16th Century

In the 1500’s, Kyoto served as the national capital and home to the imperial family. Tokyo (then Edo) was little more than a fishing village at this time, not yet placed on the map by the empowering of the Tokugawa Shogunate.

In modern times, many travelers journey to Kyoto to discover only remnants of what was once one of the most beautiful and mystical places on the planet. Back in its heyday, this Japanese city would have been the richest and most populated next to Osaka.

The predecessors to geisha gently walking in their kimonos, made from imported Chinese silk; visions of the mountains to the north and east not yet lost in a sea of grey; everything under ten meters high.

The only downside? Not much fresh fish or sushi: transporting the latest catch from Osaka to Kyoto took a while to perfect, and sushi was still in its infancy.

3. United States, The Old West

Back to the Future had the right idea – many people at one point imagine themselves as a cowboy or cowgirl.

What would you give to be riding on horseback on a cool summer morning in the undeveloped expanse of the western territories? Nothing for hundreds of miles in any direction, except perhaps the whistle of a steam locomotive and wandering tribes of Native Americans.

Of course, if you go back far enough in history, any land can be considered unexplored or undiscovered, but there’s a certain romantic connotation that stirs up when thinking about the American movement to the west.

It’s the promise of the unknown – traveling towards the Pacific, having uprooted everything stable, everything civilized in the east, and seeing where the Oregon Trail took you.

4. Ancient Egypt, c. 2500 BC

Watch the building of the pyramids and learn more about archaeoastronomy – skylights in the pyramids were carved so that certain constellations could be viewed at a set time of year.

Even the great structures themselves were arranged on the sand corresponding to the placement of three stars overhead. Discover the meaning of the Great Sphinx – who knows why it was built? Maybe some pharaoh just had a mutant pet.

Cairo will surely be hot and dry during this period in history, so remember to pack light loose-fitting clothing and plenty of sunscreen. If you wait around for another five hundred years, you might catch the finishing touches on Deir el Bahri .

5. London, 14th Century

“…the truth was that the modern world was invented in the Middle Ages. Everything from the legal system, to nation-states, to reliance on technology, to the concept of romantic love had first been established in medieval times.” – Timeline, Michael Crichton

Everyone wants to be a knight in shining armor or a princess fair and true. Chivalry isn’t dead. In fact, if you choose to travel to London roughly seven hundred years ago, you’ll find it quite alive and well.

A walking tour of this city will let you face the first real London Bridge, providing the only access across the Thames. Canterbury Tales by Chaucer paints a rather vivid picture of this era. Many of the buildings in London we associate with medieval times were already in place: The Tower of London, Westminster Hall, Westminster Abbey.

Remember to apply insect repellant liberally, as the Black Death was known to pass through Britain and France in this century.

6. Chang’an, Han Dynasty

The origin of The Silk Road and a golden age in Chinese history, when Confucian principles laid down the foundation for society and Buddhism was just beginning to spread. Travel west along this trade route and in a matter of months, you’ll reach the Roman Empire.

7. Chichen Itza, 5th century

Although you may not be in a temple of doom, it’s wise to heed the words of Indiana Jones and “protect your heart!” As one of the largest Mayan cities on the Yucatan Peninsula, Chichen Itza was the site of human sacrifices.

It’s true that quite a few of the largest temples are very well preserved in modern Mexico, but I challenge you to find another time or place in which ancient games that could rival basketball were played. Best to arrive before the Toltec siege.

8. India, c. 600 BC

The Buddha had about forty-five good years of teaching from the time of his reaching enlightenment under the Bodhi Tree to his death. Don’t waste them. Meeting the Awakened One and learning the dhamma firsthand would be an experience for which almost anyone in Asia would trade his or her life. Try and eliminate the suffering in your heart before your departure…

9. New York City, Roaring 20’s

By the time the 1920’s dawned in New York City, the modern version of a cityscape was already formed: Macy’s department stores, the public library, Grand Central Terminal, and the then world’s tallest Woolworth Building.

Unfortunately construction on the Empire State Building won’t commence until after the crash of ’29, but take advantage of this period in history with your choice of taxicabs or horse drawn carriages. Watch Lindbergh start his journey across the Atlantic. Gaze at the audience of women in hoop skirts and men in all too stiff and uncomfortable suits.

10. Babylon, c. 600 BC

One of the seven wonders of the ancient world: the hanging gardens of Babylon. As one of the first empires in human history, Babylon was built in the shadow of ancient Sumeria near the Euphrates River, and may have even been the source of the legendary Tower of Babel with its own Temple of Marduk.

I’m sure there are many asking “Why not see some dinosaurs?” Think a little practically in this impractical form of travel and question if you’d prefer camping in the late Cretaceous (and being trampled to death), or blending with the masses and observing the election of a Roman consul firsthand.

Besides, if a Tyrannosaur doesn’t get you, the meteor will later on.

Community Connection

You’ve been to the past, now meet travelers that we still remember tale. Read 10 Travelers and Why Their Tales Made History . Also, what other trends might we see in the future of travel? Check out 6 Predictions For the Future Of Travel .

Where and when would you go if you had a ticket guaranteeing a weekend of fun in any place at any time?

Trending Now

New tallest waterslide in north america: wisconsin waterpark debuts 145-foot-tall slide this memorial day weekend, grammy winner macy gray opens up on living in la, fame, and her favorite country to visit, dickie's extravagant white villa in 'ripley' is actually an airbnb that you can rent, discover matador, adventure travel, train travel, national parks, beaches and islands, ski and snow.

• Newsletters

Time travel: five ways that we could do it

Cathal O’Connell

Cathal O'Connell is a science writer based in Melbourne.

In 2009 the British physicist Stephen Hawking held a party for time travellers – the twist was he sent out the invites a year later (No guests showed up). Time travel is probably impossible. Even if it were possible, Hawking and others have argued that you could never travel back before the moment your time machine was built.

But travel to the future? That’s a different story.

Of course, we are all time travellers as we are swept along in the current of time, from past to future, at a rate of one hour per hour.

But, as with a river, the current flows at different speeds in different places. Science as we know it allows for several methods to take the fast-track into the future. Here’s a rundown.

1. Time travel via speed

This is the easiest and most practical way to time travel into the far future – go really fast.

According to Einstein’s theory of special relativity, when you travel at speeds approaching the speed of light, time slows down for you relative to the outside world.

This is not a just a conjecture or thought experiment – it’s been measured. Using twin atomic clocks (one flown in a jet aircraft, the other stationary on Earth) physicists have shown that a flying clock ticks slower, because of its speed.

In the case of the aircraft, the effect is minuscule. But If you were in a spaceship travelling at 90% of the speed of light, you’d experience time passing about 2.6 times slower than it was back on Earth.

And the closer you get to the speed of light, the more extreme the time-travel.

Computer solves a major time travel problem

The highest speeds achieved through any human technology are probably the protons whizzing around the Large Hadron Collider at 99.9999991% of the speed of light. Using special relativity we can calculate one second for the proton is equivalent to 27,777,778 seconds, or about 11 months , for us.

Amazingly, particle physicists have to take this time dilation into account when they are dealing with particles that decay. In the lab, muon particles typically decay in 2.2 microseconds. But fast moving muons, such as those created when cosmic rays strike the upper atmosphere, take 10 times longer to disintegrate.

2. Time travel via gravity

The next method of time travel is also inspired by Einstein. According to his theory of general relativity, the stronger the gravity you feel, the slower time moves.

As you get closer to the centre of the Earth, for example, the strength of gravity increases. Time runs slower for your feet than your head.

Again, this effect has been measured. In 2010, physicists at the US National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) placed two atomic clocks on shelves, one 33 centimetres above the other, and measured the difference in their rate of ticking. The lower one ticked slower because it feels a slightly stronger gravity.

To travel to the far future, all we need is a region of extremely strong gravity, such as a black hole. The closer you get to the event horizon, the slower time moves – but it’s risky business, cross the boundary and you can never escape.

And anyway, the effect is not that strong so it’s probably not worth the trip.

Assuming you had the technology to travel the vast distances to reach a black hole (the nearest is about 3,000 light years away), the time dilation through travelling would be far greater than any time dilation through orbiting the black hole itself.

(The situation described in the movie Interstellar , where one hour on a planet near a black hole is the equivalent of seven years back on Earth, is so extreme as to be impossible in our Universe, according to Kip Thorne, the movie’s scientific advisor.)

The most mindblowing thing, perhaps, is that GPS systems have to account for time dilation effects (due to both the speed of the satellites and gravity they feel) in order to work. Without these corrections, your phones GPS capability wouldn’t be able to pinpoint your location on Earth to within even a few kilometres.

3. Time travel via suspended animation

Another way to time travel to the future may be to slow your perception of time by slowing down, or stopping, your bodily processes and then restarting them later.

Bacterial spores can live for millions of years in a state of suspended animation, until the right conditions of temperature, moisture, food kick start their metabolisms again. Some mammals, such as bears and squirrels, can slow down their metabolism during hibernation, dramatically reducing their cells’ requirement for food and oxygen.

Could humans ever do the same?

Though completely stopping your metabolism is probably far beyond our current technology, some scientists are working towards achieving inducing a short-term hibernation state lasting at least a few hours. This might be just enough time to get a person through a medical emergency, such as a cardiac arrest, before they can reach the hospital.

In 2005, American scientists demonstrated a way to slow the metabolism of mice (which do not hibernate) by exposing them to minute doses of hydrogen sulphide, which binds to the same cell receptors as oxygen. The core body temperature of the mice dropped to 13 °C and metabolism decreased 10-fold. After six hours the mice could be reanimated without ill effects.

Unfortunately, similar experiments on sheep and pigs were not successful, suggesting the method might not work for larger animals.

Another method, which induces a hypothermic hibernation by replacing the blood with a cold saline solution, has worked on pigs and is currently undergoing human clinical trials in Pittsburgh.

4. Time travel via wormholes

General relativity also allows for the possibility for shortcuts through spacetime, known as wormholes, which might be able to bridge distances of a billion light years or more, or different points in time.

Many physicists, including Stephen Hawking, believe wormholes are constantly popping in and out of existence at the quantum scale, far smaller than atoms. The trick would be to capture one, and inflate it to human scales – a feat that would require a huge amount of energy, but which might just be possible, in theory.

Attempts to prove this either way have failed, ultimately because of the incompatibility between general relativity and quantum mechanics.

5. Time travel using light

Another time travel idea, put forward by the American physicist Ron Mallet, is to use a rotating cylinder of light to twist spacetime. Anything dropped inside the swirling cylinder could theoretically be dragged around in space and in time, in a similar way to how a bubble runs around on top your coffee after you swirl it with a spoon.

According to Mallet, the right geometry could lead to time travel into either the past and the future.

Since publishing his theory in 2000, Mallet has been trying to raise the funds to pay for a proof of concept experiment, which involves dropping neutrons through a circular arrangement of spinning lasers.

His ideas have not grabbed the rest of the physics community however, with others arguing that one of the assumptions of his basic model is plagued by a singularity, which is physics-speak for “it’s impossible”.

The Royal Institution of Australia has an Education resource based on this article. You can access it here .

Related Reading: Computer solves a major time travel problem

Originally published by Cosmos as Time travel: five ways that we could do it

Please login to favourite this article.

Time Travel For Events

If you read time travel for events, and your mind immediately went to  Back To The Future… not quite. You already know that here at Endless, we’re all for giving you the latest tips and tricks on events. And you know that when it comes to the Event Tech Podcast, technology is the magic word! Every week, we get to the nitty and gritty of the tech that is shaping our industry. But today, we’re doing things a little differently – think of it as a thought experiment.

How many times in your life have you wondered what you would do if time travel was possible? What you’d visit, where you’d go? And be honest now! We know everyone has considered it at least once in their lives. So this week, our hosts Will Curran and Brandt Krueger decided to pick up on this curious notion. What would happen if time travel for events existed? How would this shape the industry? What would be new, and what would remain the same? If you’re excited for this meta episode of Event Tech, then waste no more time – press play and let’s time travel!

Click here for the full audio transcription.

Time Travel For Events: The Travel

“What would the future of the events industry look like if you had a time machine and ability to not only go forward in time but also backward in time?”, is Will’s first question. Let’s admit, the how’s and the why’s of time traveling is still quite the mystery.

Going Forward

Brandt has been doing his research on this subject: “It actually is a fairly thorough article in response talking about how if you’re able to approach the speed of light, basically what happens for you is time slows down. Time goes faster everywhere else relative to you. So going forward in time, at least in theory as far as we know it, is absolutely possible. If you can get going fast enough and approach the speed of light, at least as far as the way we know how to do it, everything’s going to slow down so you could travel 10,000 years into the future and only age one year during your journey. So getting there actually wouldn’t be too hard. Now getting back is where things start to get complicated because we don’t know how the math and the physics would work going backward in time”. Tricky, indeed!

“There does seem to be some relationships between gravity and time and things like that, so as you start getting into these really deep areas of physics and space is where things start to get a little weird when it comes to time”.

Time Travel For Events: Interesting Speakers

“This is one of the thoughts that I had is that if for example, we had the ability to time travel and go back in time or in the future and let’s say bring people into the future or things like that”, begins Will. “Imagine, right now we’re limited to the number of people keynoting at events is really who’s alive right now and who you’re able to get. But imagine all of a sudden that was off limits. Instead of having a history convention where you had some guy talking about Abraham Lincoln’s life, what if you could go back in time, get Abraham Lincoln, and bring them to do your keynote. I mean, that might disrupt time or something like that, I don’t know, but basically, you’d have so many more potential speakers”. That sounds exciting!

Consequences?

Brandt puts forward some of the dangers attached to this: “I think we have to, if we’re going to have this discussion, we have to touch on some of the possible problems that can occur with the technology like this. That’s when you start talking about the catastrophic outcomes of future tech”. For example, “what happens if you do go back in time and borrow Abraham Lincoln so that he comes forward and gives a speech at our convention and then you put him back?”.

“I think, especially with this type of technology that has the power to potentially erase the present, we’d have to be moving very, very carefully to try something very, very, very, very small and hope that there’s not a butterfly effect. So if somebody was able to come up with the technology to go back in time, we’d have to try something small and just see if there are any effects… plant a flower, something, just to make sure nothing explodes or what actually happens in the timeline. Does it create an alternate timeline? Does our timelines still exist? And now there’s been a fork where in some alternate universe, Abraham Lincoln now knows that we have meetings and conventions and knows what an audience microphone is and things like that. You know, you’d want Q&A”.

Moral Dilemmas

“What happens when you bring someone forward in time and then basically you’re putting them back to die, especially someone whose life was ended early. So yeah, great, we can bring Abe Lincoln forward. Maybe we should keep him? Those kinds of questions start to come up because there was still important work to be done back there”.

Time Travel For Events: Best. After Party. Ever.

“We talk about how much of our events are all themed and they’re all around the nostalgia, right? There’s a lot of arguments going on that they think like, for example, the ’90s will be the last year of nostalgia and things like that. But if you have time travel nostalgia doesn’t exist because if you want to experience, for example, let’s look at the number one most overrated done party theme, which is Great Gatsby, right? Oh, we want to feel like it’s in the 1920s blah blah blah. Imagine if instead of feeling like you’re in the 1920s the after party took a time travel machine and you got to go the 1920s and the happy hour was in the 1920s”. Can you imagine someone who wouldn’t be up for that?

How Cool Is Too Cool?

Brandt comes up with an interesting question: “I wonder if, Will, people would start to realize that our nostalgic parties are actually more fun than the parties that were going on at the time. You know, our stylized versions of parties when we talk about having a ’20s party or something like that. Would people suddenly realize, eww, you know what, I’d rather just go to my local hotel ballroom and have a ’20s party as opposed to actually because I’ve got better plumbing”.

I’d Like To Reserve 1927, Please

“I wonder if you could reserve a year? The PCMA convention is always in 1939 or maybe just this year, and then next year it’ll be somewhere else. You wouldn’t want him to conflict because that would be awkward if you both went back to 1939, “Oh, you’re having your convention now.” “We had this year reserved.” I mean, just think of the logistical problems. Boy, I’m Mr. Negative Nellie on this show, but I just keep seeing the logistic problems”. Well, we see where you’re coming from, Brandt!

Time Travel For Events: Going Forward

“I mean, the future would be so cool too. I’m just imagining why would you go to the past to attend a past conference when you can go to a future one and see what the future going to look like. I mean, talk about technology. I mean our podcast would like be insane. We’d have topics on days because we’d be like, “Oh, we don’t have anything to talk about this week. Okay, let me just like go 50 years forward,” and be like, “Oh my gosh, you should see this thing that we’re going to get in 50 years.” I’m just imagining how exciting it’s going to be able to bring back that information from the future as well. But then the question is does that affect our past and all this”. Well, that would definitely be one heck of a podcast!

Careful, though…

Brandt says it like it is: “It would have to be heavily regulated. Right? I don’t think people like you or I would just be able to do it for that very reason that forward in time and having knowledge of the future means then coming back to your own time is just as dangerous as going back in time and all of the things that are fraught with that. So all of the things that I’ve already negatived about going back in time apply to go forward in time if you plan on coming back”.

Security, Security, Security

“One thing we have to look at too is like security at events is totally going to change, in multiple ways”, says Will. “First of all, time security, right? What’s going to keep someone from just like, “I’m going to come into the event” and something bad can happen, right? Like, “Oh my gosh, this is the second I know that this person’s presenting and speaking and I’m going to poof, show up and do a time assassination or something” like that. God forbid. But then there’s also the question of as well, will you need additional security? Will you need security to keep your event from really happening? There’s all these things I think this is going to create this whole new industry of time security as well when it comes to everything as well”.

“We think about security being tough now. What’s it going to be like in the future to keep you from some guy who can phase through walls. Metal detectors won’t be needed anymore. You know what I mean? I just. It just blows my mind”.

Time Travel For Events: What Else?

“I think that it is an interesting point. If something does go wrong, do you have the right to go back and fix it?” is a good point brought up by Brandt. “You know, event people are perfectionist already. Now give them the ability to go back in time and make it even better. Would our events ever get finished? You know what I mean? Would they ever be done because you can always go back and make it one step closer, and what happens when you get stuck in your own personal time loop trying to make your event perfect?”.

A Potential Solution

Here’s what Brandt proposes: “What if we did have the ability to combine some future tech? Let’s say we have the ability to go back and view the past or the future and maybe have ambassadors, shall we say, that are able to go back or forward in time and they’re able to visit without interfering kind of thing. You know, that’s something that comes up in sci-fi stories a lot, right? The idea of these watchers that are just kind of there to observe the event but not interfere in any way, shape, or form. And then those people are somehow able to transmit, “Hey, this was what it was like when we were there.” And then in our current timeline, we’re able to use some kind of holographic technology or VR technology to be able to be there without actually being there.”

“So now we’re taking it into our experiential events, right? Where we’re able to go back and experience what it was like to be there either through a sense-wise type thing or, to keep it even simpler we just are able to make our 1920s party better because we have that information, that more accurate information of what it was actually like, rather than just relying on stories or what was written down. History has a tendency to favor the positive and sometimes ignore the negatives”.

“There’s always going to be people that jump ahead. Even if we do come up with a safe way of doing that, what’s to prevent someone from going back and messing with the timeline”. And that’s true – we see it now, and we’ll see it then (if then ever comes).

“The optimistic scenario is that we’re able to go back and have these amazing experiences or go forward and have these amazing experiences. (…) The pragmatic possibility is that there’s going to have to be heavy regulation about it. So, I think that’s where you start to turn to those alternatives of what can we do to get around that and take advantage of the technology without destroying the world”. Without even noticing, Brandt closes today’s episode with a perfect summary.

That’s all for this week’s Event Tech Podcast! We hope you enjoyed walking with us through this amazing thought experiment. Did it get you thinking about-about the future and time travel for events? We sure hope it did…maybe you’ll be the one responsible for making it a reality!

Interstellar

Predestination

Exploring Augmented Reality And Virtual Reality In Events

You May Also Like

#EventProfs: Our New Community Platform

Author Brandt Krueger

With over 20 years experience in the meetings and events industry, Brandt has spoken at industry events and seminars all over the world, been published in numerous magazines and websites, and teaches public and private classes on meeting and event technology and production. He provides freelance technical production services, and is the owner of Event Technology Consulting.

Endless Events is a nationwide, technology-driven, innovative events management company. We take care of event production, event technology, event creative, and event strategy to create the perfect equation for your next event.

• Event Ideas
• Event Management
• Event Planning Tips
• Event Production
• Event Technology
• Event Podcasts

© 2024 Endless Events.

• Our Process
• Join the Team
• Become A Partner
• Case Studies
• Reviews & Testimonials
• Event Management Venue selection, catering, attendee communication, furniture, transportation
• Event Production Audio, video, lighting, staging & special effects
• Event Technology Registration, event platforms, audience engagement, live streaming & support
• Event Creative Graphic design, video production, event branding, presentation design & more
• Event Strategy Goal setting, budget formulation, session strategy, creative strategy & more
• Event Planning Videos
• #EventIcons
• View All Blog Posts
• Request For Proposal
• Odnoklassniki icon Odnoklassniki
• Facebook Messenger
• LiveJournal

Advertisement

Mental Time Travel? A Neurocognitive Model of Event Simulation

• Published: 30 April 2020
• Volume 11 , pages 233–259, ( 2020 )

Cite this article

• Donna Rose Addis 1 , 2 , 3  

3704 Accesses

77 Citations

29 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

Mental time travel (MTT) is defined as projecting the self into the past and the future. Despite growing evidence of the similarities of remembering past and imagining future events, dominant theories conceive of these as distinct capacities. I propose that memory and imagination are fundamentally the same process – constructive episodic simulation – and demonstrate that the ‘simulation system’ meets the three criteria of a neurocognitive system. Irrespective of whether one is remembering or imagining, the simulation system: (1) acts on the same information, drawing on elements of experience ranging from fine-grained perceptual details to coarser-grained conceptual information and schemas about the world; (2) is governed by the same rules of operation, including associative processes that facilitate construction of a schematic scaffold, the event representation itself, and the dynamic interplay between the two (cf. predictive coding); and (3) is subserved by the same brain system. I also propose that by forming associations between schemas, the simulation system constructs multi-dimensional cognitive spaces, within which any given simulation is mapped by the hippocampus. Finally, I suggest that simulation is a general capacity that underpins other domains of cognition, such as the perception of ongoing experience. This proposal has some important implications for the construct of ‘MTT’, suggesting that ‘time’ and ‘travel’ may not be defining, or even essential, features. Rather, it is the ‘mental’ rendering of experience that is the most fundamental function of this domain-general simulation system enabling humans to re-experience the past, pre-experience the future, and also comprehend the complexities of the present.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Mental Time Travel and Disjunctivism

Spontaneous and deliberate future thinking: a dual process account

Episodic memory, simulated future planning, and their evolution.

Addis, D.R. 2018. Are episodic memories special? On the sameness of remembered and imagined event simulation. Journal of the Royal Society of New Zealand 48 (2–3): 64–88. https://doi.org/10.1080/03036758.2018.1439071 .

Article   Google Scholar  

Addis, D.R., T. Cheng, R.P. Roberts, and D.L. Schacter. 2011. Hippocampal contributions to the episodic simulation of specific and general future events. Hippocampus 21: 1045–1052. https://doi.org/10.1002/hipo.20870 .

Addis, D.R., S. Hach, and L.J. Tippett. 2016. Do strategic processes contribute to the specificity of future simulation in depression? The British Journal of Clinical Psychology 55: 167–186. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjc.12103 .

Addis, D.R., M. Moscovitch, A.P. Crawley, and M.P. McAndrews. 2004. Recollective qualities modulate hippocampal activation during autobiographical memory retrieval. Hippocampus 14: 752–762. https://doi.org/10.1002/hipo.10215 .

Addis, D.R., L. Pan, M.A. Vu, N. Laiser, and D.L. Schacter. 2009. Constructive episodic simulation of the future and the past: Distinct subsystems of a core brain network mediate imagining and remembering. Neuropsychologia 47: 2222–2238. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2008.10.026 .

Addis, D.R., and D.L. Schacter. 2012. The Hippocampus and Imagining the Future: Where Do We Stand? Front Hum Neurosci 5 : 173. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2011.00173 .

Addis, D.R., A.T. Wong, and D.L. Schacter. 2007. Remembering the past and imagining the future: Common and distinct neural substrates during event construction and elaboration. Neuropsychologia 45: 1363–1377. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2006.10.016 .

Addis, D.R., A.T. Wong, and D.L. Schacter. 2008. Age-related changes in the episodic simulation of future events. Psychological Science 19: 33. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02043.x .

Anderson, R.J., S.A. Dewhurst, and R.A. Nash. 2012. Shared cognitive processes underlying past and future thinking: the impact of imagery and concurrent task demands on event specificity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition 38: 356–365. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0025451 .

Arzy, S., and D.L. Schacter. 2019. Self-agency and self-ownership in cognitive mapping. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 23: 476–487. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2019.04.003 .

Atance, C.M., and D.K. O'Neill. 2001. Episodic future thinking. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 5 (12): 533–539. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1364-6613(00)01804-0 .

Baddeley, A.D. 2000. The episodic buffer: A new component of working memory? Trends in Cognitive Sciences 4: 417–423. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1364-6613(00)01538-2 .

Baldassano, C., J. Chen, A. Zadbood, J.W. Pillow, U. Hasson, and K.A. Norman. 2017. Discovering event structure in continuous narrative perception and memory. Neuron 95: 709–721. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2017.06.041 .

Bar, M. 2009. The proactive brain: Memory for predictions. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B-Biological Sciences 364 (1521): 1235–1243. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2008.0310 .

Bartlett, F.C. 1932. Remembering . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Google Scholar  

Beaty, R.E., M. Benedek, S. Barry Kaufman, and P.J. Silvia. 2015. Default and executive network coupling supports creative idea production. Scientific Reports 5: 10964. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep10964 .

Behrens, T.E.J., T.H. Muller, J.C.R. Whittington, S. Mark, A.B. Baram, K.L. Stachenfeld, and Z. Kurth-Nelson. 2018. What is a cognitive map? Organizing knowledge for flexible behavior. Neuron 100: 490–509. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2018.10.002 .

Binder, J.R., R.H. Desai, W.W. Graves, and L.L. Conant. 2009. Where is the semantic system? A critical review and meta-analysis of 120 functional neuroimaging studies. Cerebral Cortex 19: 2767–2796. https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhp055 .

Brewin, C.R. 2014. Episodic memory, perceptual memory, and their interaction: Foundations for a theory of posttraumatic stress disorder. Psychological Bulletin 140: 69–97. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0033722 .

Buckner, R.L., and D.C. Carroll. 2007. Self-projection and the brain. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 11: 49–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2006.11.004 .

Burianova, H., and C.L. Grady. 2007. Common and unique neural activations in autobiographical, episodic, and semantic retrieval. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 19: 1520–1534. https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn.2007.19.9.1520 .

Cabeza, R., and M. Moscovitch. 2013. Memory systems, processing modes, and components: Functional neuroimaging evidence. Perspectives on Psychological Science 8: 49–55. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691612469033 .

Cabral, J., M.L. Kringelbach, and G. Deco. 2014. Exploring the network dynamics underlying brain activity during rest. Progress in Neurobiology 114: 102–131. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pneurobio.2013.12.005 .

Chen, J., C.J. Honey, E. Simony, M.J. Arcaro, K.A. Norman, and U. Hasson. 2016. Accessing real-life episodic information from minutes versus hours earlier modulates hippocampal and high-order cortical dynamics. Cerebral Cortex 26: 3428–3441. https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhv155 .

Christoff, K., Z.C. Irving, K.C.R. Fox, R.N. Spreng, and J.R. Andrews-Hanna. 2016. Mind-wandering as spontaneous thought: A dynamic framework. Nature Reviews Neuroscience 17: 718–731. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn.2016.113 .

Christoff, K., V. Prabhakaran, J. Dorfman, Z. Zhao, J.K. Kroger, K.J. Holyoak, and J.D. Gabrieli. 2001. Rostrolateral prefrontal cortex involvement in relational integration during reasoning. Neuroimage 14 (5): 1136–1149. https://doi.org/10.1006/nimg.2001.0922 .

Conway, M.A., and C.W. Pleydell-Pearce. 2000. The construction of autobiographical memories in the self-memory system. Psychological Review 107: 261–288. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295x.107.2.261 .

Craik, F.I.M. 2007. Encoding: A cognitive perspective. In Science of memory concepts , ed. H.L. Roediger, Y. Dudai, and S.M. Fitzpatrick, 129–136. New York: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195310443.003.0007 .

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Craik, F.I.M., and R.S. Lockhart. 1972. Levels of processing: A framework for memory research. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 11: 671–684. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5371(72)80001-X .

D'Argembeau, A., D. Stawarczyk, S. Majerus, F. Collette, M. Van der Linden, D. Feyers, et al. 2010. The neural basis of personal goal processing when envisioning future events. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 22: 1701–1713. https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn.2009.21314 .

D'Argembeau, A., and M. Van der Linden. 2004. Phenomenal characteristics associated with projecting oneself back into the past and forward into the future: Influence of valence and temporal distance. Consciousness & Cognition 13: 844–858.

D'Argembeau, A., and M. Van der Linden. 2006. Individuals differences in the phenomenology of mental time travel: The effects of vivid visual imagery and emotion regulation strategies. Consciousness and Cognition 15: 342–350. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2004.07.007 .

D'Argembeau, A., and M. Van der Linden. 2012. Predicting the phenomenology of episodic future thoughts. Consciousness and Cognition 21: 1198–1206. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2012.05.004 .

Dannenberg, H., A.S. Alexander, J.C. Robinson, and M.E. Hasselmo. 2018. The role of hierarchical dynamical functions in coding for episodic memory and cognition. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 31 (9): 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn_a_01439 .

Dayan, P., G.E. Hinton, and R.M.T. Neal. 1995. The Helmholtz machine. Neural Computation 7: 889–904. https://doi.org/10.1162/neco.1995.7.5.889 .

De Brigard, F., D.R. Addis, J.H. Ford, D.L. Schacter, and K.S. Giovanello. 2013. Remembering what could have happened: Neural correlates of episodic counterfactual thinking. Neuropsychologia 51: 2401–2414. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2013.01.015 .

de Vito, S., N. Gamboz, and M.A. Brandimonte. 2012a. What differentiates episodic future thinking from complex scene imagery? Consciousness and Cognition 21: 813–823. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2012.01.013 .

de Vito, S., N. Gamboz, A.M. Brandimonte, P. Barone, M. Amboni, and S. Della Sala. 2012b. Future thinking in Parkinson's disease: An executive function? Neuropsychologia 50: 1494–1501. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2012.03.001 .

Devitt, A.L., E. Monk-Fromont, D.L. Schacter, and D.R. Addis. 2016. Factors that influence the generation of autobiographical memory conjunction errors. Memory 24: 204–222. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658211.2014.998680 .

Dixon, M.L., A. De La Vega, C. Mills, J.R. Andrews-Hanna, R.N. Spreng, M.W. Cole, and K. Christoff. 2018. Heterogeneity within the frontoparietal control network and its relationship to the default and dorsal attention networks. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 115: E1598–E1607. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1715766115 .

Ernst, A., A. Scoboria, and A. D’Argembeau. 2019. On the role of autobiographical knowledge in shaping belief in the future occurrence of imagined events. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 72: 2658–2671. https://doi.org/10.1177/1747021819855621 .

Frith, U., and C. Frith. 2003. Development and neurophysiology of mentalizing. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B . Biological Sciences 358: 459–473. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2002.1218 .

Fuster, J.M. 1997. Network memory. Trends in Neurosciences 20: 451–459. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0166-2236(97)01128-4 .

Garry, M., C.G. Manning, E.F. Loftus, and S.J. Sherman. 1996. Imagination inflation: Imagining a childhood event inflates confidence that it occurred. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 3 (2): 208–214. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03212420 .

Gentner, D. 1983. Structure-mapping: A theoretical framework for analogy. Cognitive Science 7: 155–170. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0364-0213(83)80009-3 .

Ghosh, V.E., and A. Gilboa. 2014. What is a memory schema? A historical perspective on current neuroscience literature. Neuropsychologia 53: 104–114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2013.11.010 .

Gilboa, A., and H. Marlatte. 2017. Neurobiology of schemas and schema-mediated memory. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 21: 618–631. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2017.04.013 .

Gilboa, A., and M. Moscovitch. 2017. Ventromedial prefrontal cortex generates pre-stimulus theta coherence desynchronization: A schema instantiation hypothesis. Cortex 87: 16–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cortex.2016.10.008 .

Graf, P., and D.L. Schacter. 1989. Unitization and grouping mediate dissociations in memory for new associations. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition 15: 930–940. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.15.5.930 .

Grysman, A., J. Prabhakar, S.M. Anglin, and J.A. Hudson. 2013. The time travelling self: Comparing self and other in narratives of past and future events. Consciousness & Cognition 22: 742–755. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2013.04.010 .

Hassabis, D., D. Kumaran, S.D. Vann, and E.A. Maguire. 2007. Patients with hippocampal amnesia cannot imagine new experiences. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 104: 1726–1731. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0610561104 .

Hassabis, D., and E.A. Maguire. 2007. Deconstructing episodic memory with construction. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 11: 299–306.

Hasson, U., J. Chen, and C.J. Honey. 2015. Hierarchical process memory: Memory as an integral component of information processing. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 19: 304–313. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2015.04.006 .

Hebb, D.O. 1949. The organization of behavior: A neuropsychological theory . Oxford: Wiley.

Holyoak, K.J. 2012. Analogy and relational reasoning. In The Oxford handbook of thinking and reasoning , ed. K.J. Holyoak and R.G. Morrison, 234–259. New York, N.Y: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199734689.013.0013 .

Horner, A.J., and N. Burgess. 2013. The associative structure of memory for multi-element events. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 142: 1370–1383. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0033626 .

Hummel, J.E., and K.J. Holyoak. 2003. A symbolic-connectionist theory of relational inference and generalization. Psychological Review 110: 220–263. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295x.110.2.220 .

Irish, M., D.R. Addis, J. Hodges, and O. Piguet. 2012a. Considering the role of semantic memory in episodic future thinking: Evidence from semantic dementia. Brain 135: 2178–2191. https://doi.org/10.1093/brain/aws119 .

Irish, M., D.R. Addis, J. Hodges, and O. Piguet. 2012b. Exploring the content and quality of episodic future thinking simulations in semantic dementia. Neuropsychologia 50: 3488–3495. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2012.09.012 .

Irish, M., and O. Piguet. 2013. The pivotal role of semantic memory in remembering the past and imagining the future. Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience 7: 27. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnbeh.2013.00027 .

Isomura, T., T. Parr, and K. Friston. 2019. Bayesian filtering with multiple internal models: Toward a theory of social intelligence. Neural Computation 31: 2390–2431. https://doi.org/10.1162/neco_a_01239 .

Johnson, M.K., S. Hashtroudi, and D.S. Lindsay. 1993. Source monitoring. Psychological Bulletin 114: 3–28. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.114.1.3 .

Johnson, M.K., and C.L. Raye. 1981. Reality monitoring. Psychological Review 88: 67–85. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.88.1.67 .

Kensinger, E.A., R.J. Garoff-Eaton, and D.L. Schacter. 2007. Effects of emotion on memory specificity: Memory trade-offs elicited by negative visually arousing stimuli. Journal of Memory and Language 56: 575–591. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2006.05.004 .

Levine, B., E. Svoboda, J.F. Hay, G. Winocur, and M. Moscovitch. 2002. Aging and autobiographical memory: Dissociating episodic from semantic retrieval. Psychology and Aging 17: 677–689. https://doi.org/10.1037/0882-7974.17.4.677 .

Mahr, J., and G. Csibra. 2018. Why do we remember? The communicative function of episodic memory. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 41: e1. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X17000012 .

Mar, R.A. 2004. The neuropsychology of narrative: Story comprehension, story production and their interrelation. Neuropsychologia 42: 1414–1434. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2003.12.016 .

McIntosh, A.R. 2007. Coding and representation: The importance of mesoscale dynamics. In Science of memory concepts , ed. H.L. Roediger, Y. Dudai, and S.M. Fitzpatrick, 65–68. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195310443.003.0004 .

Menon, V., and L.Q. Uddin. 2010. Saliency, switching, attention and control: A network model of insula function. Brain Structure & Function 214: 655–667. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00429-010-0262-0 .

Michaelian, K. 2011. Generative memory. Philosophical Psychology 24: 323–342. https://doi.org/10.1080/09515089.2011.559623 .

Michaelian, K. 2016a. Against discontinuism: Mental time travel and our knowledge of past and future events. In Seeing the future: Theoretical perspectives on future-oriented mental time travel , ed. K. Michaelian, S.B. Klein, and K.K. Szpunar, 62–92. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780190241537.003.0004 .

Michaelian, K. 2016b. Confabulating, misremembering, relearning: The simulation theory of memory and unsuccessful remembering. Frontiers in Psychology 7: 1857. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01857 .

Misra, P., A. Marconi, M. Peterson, and G. Kreiman. 2018. Minimal memory for details in real life events. Scientific Reports 8: 16701. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-33792-2 .

Neisser, U. 1976. Cognition and reality: Principles and implications of cognitive psychology . New York, NY: W H Freeman/Times Books/ Henry Holt & Co..

O'Keefe, J., and L. Nadel. 1978. The hippocampus as a cognitive map . Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Okuda, J., T. Fujii, H. Ohtake, T. Tsukiura, K. Tanji, K. Suzuki, R. Kawashima, H. Fukuda, M. Itoh, and A. Yamadori. 2003. Thinking of the future and the past: The roles of the frontal pole and the medial temporal lobes. Neuroimage 19: 1369–1380. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1053-8119(03)00179-4 .

Peer, M., Y. Ron, R. Monsa, and S. Arzy. 2019. Processing of different spatial scales in the human brain. eLife 8: e47492. https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.47492 .

Perrin, D. 2016. Asymmetries in subjective time. In Seeing the future: Theoretical perspectives on future-oriented mental time travel , ed. K. Michaelian, S.B. Klein, and K.K. Szpunar, 39–61. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780190241537.003.0003 .

Perrin, D., and K. Michaelian. 2017. Memory as mental time travel. In The Routledge handbook of philosophy of memory , ed. S. Bernecker and K. Michaelian, 228–240. London: Routledge.

Rasmussen, A.S., and D. Berntsen. 2013. The reality of the past versus the ideality of the future: Emotional valence and functional differences between past and future mental time travel. Memory & Cognition 41: 187–200. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-012-0260-y .

Richardson, A. 2012. Defaulting to fiction: Neuroscience rediscovers the romantic imagination. Poetics Today 32 (4): 663–692. https://doi.org/10.1215/03335372-1459845 .

Roberts, R.P., and D.R. Addis. 2018. A common mode of processing governing divergent thinking and future imagination. In The Cambridge handbook of the neuroscience of creativity , ed. R.E. Jung and O. Vartanian, 211–230. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316556238.013 .

Roberts, R.P., D.L. Schacter, and D.R. Addis. 2017a. Scene construction and relational processing: Separable constructs? Cerebral Cortex . https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhx081 .

Roberts, R.P., K. Wiebels, R.L. Sumner, V. van Mulukom, C.L. Grady, D.L. Schacter, and D.R. Addis. 2017b. An fMRI investigation of the relationship between future imagination and cognitive flexibility. Neuropsychologia 95: 156–172. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2016.11.019 .

Robins, S.K. 2016. Misremembering. Philosophical Psychology 29: 432–447. https://doi.org/10.1080/09515089.2015.1113245 .

Roediger, H.L., Y. Dudai, and S.M. Fitzpatrick, eds. 2007. Science of memory concepts . New York, NY: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195310443.001.0001 .

Book   Google Scholar  

Rubin, D.C., and S. Umanath. 2015. Event memory: A theory of memory for laboratory, autobiographical, and fictional events. Psychological Review 122: 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037907 .

Rumelhart, D.E., and A. Ortony. 1977. The representation of knowledge in memory. In Schooling and the acquisition of knowledge , ed. R.C. Anderson, R.J. Spiro, and W.E. Montague, 99–135. Hillsdale, N.J: Erlbaum.

Schacter, D.L., and D.R. Addis. 2007. The cognitive neuroscience of constructive memory: Remembering the past and imagining the future. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological Sciences 362: 773–786. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2007.2087 .

Schacter, D.L., D.R. Addis, and R.L. Buckner. 2007. The prospective brain: Remembering the past to imagine the future. Nature Reviews Neuroscience 8: 657–661. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn2213 .

Schacter, D.L., K.A. Norman, and W. Koutstaal. 1998. The cognitive neuroscience of constructive memory. Annual Review of Psychology 49: 289–318. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.49.1.289 .

Schacter, D.L., and E. Tulving. 1994. What are the memory systems of 1994? In Memory systems , ed. D.L. Schacter and E. Tulving, 1–38. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Schank, R.C., and R.P. Abelson. 1977. Scripts, plans, goals and understanding: An inquiry into human knowledge structures . Oxford: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Scoboria, A., D.L. Jackson, J. Talarico, M. Hanczakowski, L. Wysman, and G. Mazzoni. 2014. The role of belief in occurrence within autobiographical memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 143: 1242–1258. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0034110 .

Sheldon, S., and B. Levine. 2016. The role of the hippocampus in memory and mental construction. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 1369: 76–92. https://doi.org/10.1111/nyas.13006 .

Sheldon, S., M.P. McAndrews, and M. Moscovitch. 2011. Episodic memory processes mediated by the medial temporal lobes contribute to open-ended problem solving. Neuropsychologia 49: 2439–2447. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2011.04.021 .

Shine, J.M., P.G. Bissett, P.T. Bell, O. Koyejo, J.H. Balsters, K.J. Gorgolewski, C.A. Moodie, and R.A. Poldrack. 2016. The dynamics of functional brain networks: Integrated network states during cognitive task performance. Neuron 92: 544–554. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2016.09.018 .

Spreng, R.N., W.D. Stevens, J.P. Chamberlain, A.W. Gilmore, and D.L. Schacter. 2010. Default network activity, coupled with the frontoparietal control network, supports goal-directed cognition. Neuroimage 53: 303–317 10.1016%2Fj.neuroimage.2010.06.016.

Squire, L.R., E.T. Rolls, M.K. Johnson, and R.L. Buckner. 2007. Memory systems. In Science of memory: Concepts , ed. H.L. Roediger, Y. Dudai, and S.M. Fitzpatrick, 338–364. New York: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195310443.003.0016 .

Squire, L.R., A.S. van der Horst, S.G.R. McDuff, J.C. Frascino, R.O. Hopkinse, and K.N. Mauldin. 2010. Role of the hippocampus in remembering the past and imagining the future. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 107: 19044–19048. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1014391107 .

Szpunar, K.K., J.C.K. Chan, and K.B. McDermott. 2009. Contextual processing in episodic future thought. Cerebral Cortex 19: 1539–1548. https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhn191 .

Szpunar, K.K., J.M. Watson, and K.B. McDermott. 2007. Neural substrates of envisioning the future. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 104 : 642–647. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0610082104 .

Taylor, S.E., and S.K. Schneider. 1989. Coping and the simulation of events. Social Cognition 7: 174–194. https://doi.org/10.1521/soco.1989.7.2.174 .

Tolman, E.C. 1948. Cognitive maps in rats and men. Psychological Review 55: 189–208. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0061626 .

Tulving, E. 1972. Episodic and semantic memory. In Organization of Memory , ed. E. Tulving and W. Donaldson, 381–403. New York: Academic Press.

Tulving, E. 1985. Memory and consciousness. Canadian Psychologist 25: 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0080017 .

Urmson, J.O. 1967. Memory and imagination. Mind 76 (301): 83–91.

van Mulukom, V., D.L. Schacter, M.C. Corballis, and D.R. Addis. 2013. Re-imagining the future: Repetition decreases hippocampal involvement in future simulation. PLoS One 8: e69596. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0069596 .

Verfaellie, M., A.A. Wank, A.G. Reid, E. Race, and M.M. Keane. 2019. Self-related processing and future thinking: Distinct contributions of ventromedial prefrontal cortex and the medial temporal lobes. Cortex 115: 159–171. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cortex.2019.01.028 .

Webb, C.E., I.C. Turney, and N.A. Dennis. 2016. What's the gist? The influence of schemas on the neural correlates underlying true and false memories. Neuropsychologia 93: 61–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2016.09.023 .

Weiler, J.A., B. Suchan, and I. Daum. 2010. Foreseeing the future: Occurrence probability of imagined future events modulates hippocampal activation. Hippocampus 20: 685–690. https://doi.org/10.1002/hipo.20695 .

Wiebels, K., D.R. Addis, D. Moreau, V. van Mulukom, K.E. Onderdijk, and R.P. Roberts. 2020. Relational processing demands and the role of spatial context in the construction of episodic future simulation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition . Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0000831 .

Zacks, J.M., N.K. Speer, K.M. Swallow, T.S. Braver, and J.R. Reynolds. 2007. Event perception: A mind/brain perspective. Psychological Bulletin 133: 273–293. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.133.2.273 .

Zacks, J.M., and B. Tversky. 2001. Event structure in perception and conception. Psychological Bulletin 127: 3–21. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.127.1.3 .

Download references

Acknowledgements

I gratefully acknowledge the editors of this Special Issue who also organized the Otago Mental Time Travel Symposium that served as inspiration for the paper, and the comments of anonymous reviewers. This work was supported thanks to funding from the Canada 150 Research Chairs Program.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Rotman Research Institute, Baycrest Health Sciences, Toronto, Canada

Donna Rose Addis

Department of Psychology, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada

The School of Psychology, The University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Donna Rose Addis .

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Addis, D.R. Mental Time Travel? A Neurocognitive Model of Event Simulation. Rev.Phil.Psych. 11 , 233–259 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13164-020-00470-0

Download citation

Published : 30 April 2020

Issue Date : June 2020

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s13164-020-00470-0

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Autobiographical memory
• Default mode network
• Episodic memory
• Future thinking
• Hippocampus
• Imagination
• Medial prefrontal cortex
• Prospection
• Semantic memory
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

Ash & Pri

14 Epic Historical Events You Should Program Your Time Machine For

Posted: October 24, 2023 | Last updated: April 11, 2024

The Dance of Strasbourg 1518

“Strasbourg 1518, to witness the event where the whole town succumbed to mass hysteria and danced themselves to death over 2 months.”

In the 16th century, Strasbourg saw an outbreak of bizarre dancing mania that gripped the town for months. The event began when a lone woman began to dance erratically in the streets. What started as an isolated case soon snowballed into a bizarre and terrifying spectacle. More and more people joined the dance, unable to control their movements. It escalated to the point where hundreds of individuals were consumed by the compulsion to dance, often to the point of exhaustion and injury. The phenomenon left historians puzzled and makes for a unique, albeit eerie, spectacle.

The Birth of the Moon

“Assuming I have a safe vantage point on some kind of space ship, I choose the planetary impact that’s believed to have given us the moon.”

Imagine having a front-row seat to the cosmic fireworks that led to the creation of our moon. This user’s choice is truly out of this world, offering a celestial perspective on a pivotal moment in Earth’s history.

The Tower of Babel Linguistic Exploration

“I have always wanted to go back in time to somewhere around 4500 BC and just record the languages being spoken around the world.”

Many users were intrigued by the Tower of Babel story from biblical history and the idea of unraveling the world’s ancient languages. Their curiosity takes them back to the earliest days of human communication, where the roots of our modern tongues lie hidden.

Tenochtitlan’s Glory

“I’d like to see Tenochtitlan before the Spanish destroyed it.”

The splendor of Tenochtitlan, the Aztec capital, caught the attention of several users. They wish to witness the grandeur of this city before its tragic fall, celebrating the rich culture and history of Mesoamerica.

The Lake Agassiz Deluge

“As a geologist, the Lake Agassiz flood. During the last glacial period, over 12,000 years ago, there was a massive lake in the middle of the North American continent.”

For geology enthusiasts, the Lake Agassiz flood is a mind-boggling spectacle. Users’ interest in this massive glacial event, where nature’s immense power shaped the land, is a testament to the wonders of our planet’s geological history.

A Mesozoic Safari

“Would love to see and hear dinosaurs roaming around our land.”

Who doesn’t dream of a prehistoric adventure? Several users yearn to go back in time and witness the majesty of dinosaurs. The idea of hearing the roar of a T. rex or the trumpeting of a Brachiosaurus is the ultimate thrill for any dinosaur lover.

The Rebirth of the Mediterranean

“For a long time, the Mediterranean sea was cut off from the Atlantic ocean and the rivers flowing into it were not enough to prevent it drying up completely.”

Witnessing the Mediterranean Sea come back to life after a prolonged dry spell appeals to the imagination of many. Users want to see the moment when water cascaded into the basin and restored this iconic body of water.

Diogenes and Alexander’s Sunlight Encounter

“Diogenes telling Alexander the great to step out of his sunlight.”

This historical anecdote has sparked curiosity among users. The audacity of Diogenes in asserting his rights to a patch of sunlight, even in the presence of a powerful ruler like Alexander the Great, remains an amusing and thought-provoking episode.

Kepler’s Supernova

“Kepler’s Supernova – Visible to the naked eye, Kepler’s Star was brighter at its peak than any other star in the night sky.”

Users with a fascination for astronomy were drawn to Kepler’s Supernova. The Supernova occurred in the year 1604 and is considered one of the most famous and well-documented supernovae in history. What makes Kepler’s Supernova particularly intriguing is its visibility to the naked eye. It became incredibly bright, reaching an apparent magnitude of -2.5, which is brighter than any other star in the night sky at its peak. Witnessing this astronomical event, brighter than any other star in the night sky, would be a stellar experience, literally.

A Family Reunion on the Golden Gate Bridge

“When the Golden Gate Bridge was finished, my Father was one of the first to walk across it. He died when I was 8. Would love to see him again.”

This user’s choice is a heartwarming one. It’s a longing to revisit a personal and touching moment in history-the completion of the Golden Gate Bridge and a chance to share a special memory with a loved one.

A Scholarly Tour of the Library of Alexandria

“A tour of Library of Alexandria before it was destroyed.”

The desire to explore the ancient Library of Alexandria before its unfortunate demise is shared by many history enthusiasts. This iconic institution was not only a repository of knowledge but also a vibrant center of learning, housing countless scrolls and manuscripts from various ancient civilizations. Stepping into its hallowed halls would provide an incredible opportunity to witness the intellectual vibrancy of the ancient world and the profound impact it had on human history.

Beethoven’s Ninth Symphony Debut

“The premiere of Beethoven’s 9th symphony in Vienna.”

A music lover’s dream, this user’s choice harks back to a moment of musical history, the debut of Beethoven’s legendary Ninth Symphony. Being present at this groundbreaking performance would be a harmonious delight.

Investigating the JFK Assassination

“JFK assassination with a bunch of hi-res cameras.”

Users seeking answers to the JFK assassination mystery wish to document the event with high-resolution cameras. This choice reflects the enduring intrigue and desire for clarity surrounding this pivotal moment in American history.

Queen’s Live Aid Extravaganza

“Queen at Live Aid in 1985, from the footage you can tell it was an amazing event but to be there and experience it must have been something else.”

The electrifying performance by Queen at Live Aid in 1985 left an indelible mark on many. Users want to transport themselves to Wembley Stadium to witness this iconic rock concert firsthand, capturing the magic that still reverberates through the annals of music history.

Source: Reddit.

“I Can’t Tell Anyone This Or It’ll Ruin My Life” – 11 Secrets People Share That They Can’t Tell Anyone

Secrets can weigh heavy on our hearts, and some are so profound that sharing them could potentially turn our lives upside down. In a social media thread, users revealed secrets they’ve been harboring, ones they fear could shatter their world if ever exposed. From workplace confessions to family mysteries, these stories offer a glimpse into the hidden burdens some carry.

Things Most People Don’t Know About the Bible

The Bible, a sacred text with a history spanning thousands of years, holds within its pages a wealth of knowledge, wisdom, and intriguing stories. While many are familiar with its most famous tales, there’s a trove of lesser-known details and nuances that often go unnoticed.

10 Things Most People Don’t Know About the Bible

Secret Societies That Control our World: Illuminati, Freemasons, and More

Prepare to journey into the shadowy world of secret societies, where intrigue, power, and conspiracy theories abound! Scroll through as we unveil the enigmatic realm of organizations that have captured imaginations and sparked wild speculations for centuries.

10 Secret Societies That Control our World: Illuminati, Freemasons, and More

Dead Giveaways That Someone Doesn’t Have a Life

In the age of constant connectivity, it’s not uncommon to come across people who seem to lack a life outside of their particular quirks and obsessions. Many users on a social media thread have shared their insights into what they consider “dead giveaways” that someone might be lacking in the life department.

11 Dead Giveaways That Someone Doesn’t Have a Life

Ingenious Scams That Have Fooled People All Across The World

In today’s digitally interconnected world, clever scams have become increasingly sophisticated, targeting individuals from all walks of life. These scams are designed to exploit human vulnerabilities, often leaving victims emotionally and financially devastated.

In this list, we’ll explore 15 incredibly clever scams that are active today, delving into their tactics, providing real-life examples of individuals who fell victim, and highlighting the importance of staying vigilant in an age where deception is on the rise.

15 Ingenious Scams That Have Fooled People All Across The World

More for You

Stephen Hawking once gave a simple answer as to whether there was a God

Repairman shows how common laundry product could be ruining your washing machine: 'Once you break the bad habit you'll be OK'

Here’s what Honig says ‘blew his mind’ during final day of testimony in Trump trial

"I Texted My Dad To Immediately Pick Me Up": 23 People Are Recalling The Bizarre "House Rules" They Experienced At Someone Else's Home When They Were A Kid

This Is What a TSA Agent First Notices About You

What happens if you don’t use your credit card?

I drank Diet Coke daily for 25 years—then stopped: A Harvard nutritionist says I did my brain 'a favor'

The Only Major Actors Still Alive From The Carol Burnett Show

I Lost 50lbs With 3 Lifestyle Changes

This 3,000-Year-Old Sword Was So Well Preserved That It 'Almost Still Shines'

14 Code Words You Never Want to Hear on Cruise Ships

Ask Amy: Siblings’ estrangement is a tangle over money

What Haley donors, voters think about her saying she'll vote for Trump in November

Judge rules Menendez's prosecutors can't show 'critical' evidence

USPS wants people to install new jumbo mailboxes. Here's why.

Here's No. 1 thing mentally strong couples 'never' do, says relationship therapist of 20 years

Woman Loses 70lbs By Making Changes To These Four Things

Travis Kelce breaks silence on Harrison Butker's controversial commencement speech

What Those Colored Circles on Food Packages Actually Mean

"The First Time I Visited The US I Thought This Was A Restaurant Scam": Non-Americans Are Sharing The Things That Are Totally Common In The US But Bizarre In Other Countries

World Clock Meeting Planner

Find the best time to call people in other time zones.

• Pick date and locations
• Find a time
• Show details

Please note: if some of the participants are in the United Kingdom, you should select a city there (e.g., London), instead of UTC/GMT.

The United Kingdom is one hour ahead of GMT during Daylight Saving Time (DST), and this service will adjust for DST automatically.

Need some help?

Elsewhere on timeanddate.com

Event Time Announcer – Create New Event

The Event Time Announcer shows the local time in cities all over the world at a given time in the past or future. Can be shared with users worldwide.

Time Zone Converter – Time Difference Calculator

Find the exact time difference with the Time Zone Converter – Time Difference Calculator which converts the time difference between places and time zones all over the world.

Create Your Own Countdown

Make your own countdown to any date.

Get the time at any given coordinate on Earth, calculate time zone conversions.

Welcome to Time Travel Events

Upcoming shows.

June 1, 2024

Join us for a night out feeling without the late night finish.

Cryptid High Tea

June 8, 2024.

Tea, biscuits, entertainment, and most of all.... cryptid stories.

Atlanta Cosplay Yard Sale

August 24, 2024.

Need cosplay ideas, accessories, or total outfits right before DragonCon?? We got the spot for you!

Tickets and Extras

Uncategorized

Day-glo: afternoon delight.

Cryptid High Tea Collection

$ 15.00.

$ 35.00

We go into details of events we've done or events we will do.

Information

Acys and ccs cosplay yard sale.

Atlanta Cosplay Yard Sale and Charlie’s Collectible Show have teamed up to host a Cosplay Yard Sale to get you ready for MomoCon! Our vendors have new and used cosplay pieces to complete costumes. Some Read more…

The Goblin Market FAQ

We get a lot of questions about The Goblin Market each year. We do understand that it is a unique event, so we’re going to do our best to help answer some common questions you Read more…

Time Traveling Book Fair Vendors List

Hi Time Travelers! Here’s a list of vendors at the Time Traveling Book Fair we had this past Saturday, September 30 in Acworth, GA. Please give them a follow and see where they’re headed to Read more…

Need to contact us?

Eurasian jays can use 'mental time travel' like humans, study finds

Study finds jays remember incidental details, similar to episodic memory in humans.

Eurasian jays can remember incidental details of past events, which is characteristic of episodic memory in humans, according to a study published May 15, 2024, in the open-access journal PLOS ONE by James Davies of the University of Cambridge, UK and colleagues.

When remembering events, humans have the ability of "mental time travel," consciously reimagining past experiences and potentially recalling details that seemed unimportant at the time. Some researchers have suggested that this "episodic memory" is unique to humans. In this study, Davies and colleagues ran a memory experiment to test for episodic-like memory in seven Eurasian jays, birds that excel at remembering the location of stored food.

In the experiment, the birds watched food get placed beneath one cup in a line of four identical cups and were then rewarded for correctly selecting the baited cup. Over several trials, the birds were trained to identify the correct cup by remembering its position in line. Then, at test, the jays were given an unexpected memory assessment: they watched food get placed beneath one of the cups, which now all had unique visual characteristics, but they were then separated from the cups for 10 minutes while the cups were relocated and rearranged. Despite the changed positions of the cups and the added time delay, the birds still correctly identified the baited cup according to their visual characteristics 70% of the time.

These results suggest that even though visual differences between the cups were unimportant during training, the birds were able to notice those differences at test and recall them later, similar to episodic memory in humans. This study indicates that episodic-like memory might aid jays in finding food stores, and the researchers suggest that future studies might investigate whether the birds can perform similar feats of memory in other non-food-related scenarios.

The authors add: "As the jays were able to remember details that held no specific value or relevance at the time that the memory was created, this suggests that they are able to record, recall, and access incidental information within a remembered event. This is an ability that characterises the type of human memory through which we mentally 'relive' past events (or episodes ), known as 'episodic' memory."

• Intelligence
• Educational Psychology
• Animal Learning and Intelligence
• Canada Lynx
• Jane Goodall
• Memory-prediction framework
• Memory bias
• Limbic system
• Philosophy of mind

Story Source:

Materials provided by PLOS . Note: Content may be edited for style and length.

Journal Reference :

• James R. Davies, Elias Garcia-Pelegrin, Nicola S. Clayton. Eurasian jays (Garrulus glandarius) show episodic-like memory through the incidental encoding of information . PLOS ONE , 2024; 19 (5): e0301298 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0301298

Cite This Page :

Explore More

• Look, Then Listen to 1 Person in a Crowd: AI
• Predicting Individual Cancer Risk
• Treating Cataracts and Other Eye Conditions
• Early Arrival of Palaeolithic People On Cyprus
• Networks Regulating Gene Function in Human Brain
• Birth of Universe's Earliest Galaxies
• Why the Brain Can Robustly Recognize B&W Images
• Birth Control Pill for Men?
• Intriguing World Sized Between Earth, Venus
• Billions of Orphan Stars Revealed

Trending Topics

Strange & offbeat.

• International

The latest on the massive solar storm

By Angela Fritz, Elise Hammond and Chris Lau, CNN

Incredible lighthouse picture from Maine

From CNN's Chris Lau

Among a flurry of surreal images capturing the dazzling auroras is one taken by Benjamin Williamson of a lighthouse in Portland, Maine.

"It's one of the most incredible things I've ever seen, the awe and wonder," Williamson told CNN.

He said he used a long-exposure technique to snap the shot, but did not edit it.

Watch the full interview with Williamson here .

Things could be about to ramp up

If you still haven't seen the aurora, hold on for another 30 minutes to an hour, according to CNN meteorologist Chad Myers.

The next wave of coronal mass ejections, or CMEs, which cause the aurora, is about to arrive, he said.

"Just wait a minute because things are going to start to ramp up here," he said, adding that the increase could arrive "anytime now." "When it comes, get outside, get ready, put your coat on."

For those who are too busy to witness the phenomenon tonight, Myers said the aurora is expected to last three nights.

Why does the aurora last for a weekend?

By CNN's Chris Lau

Generally, it takes just eight minutes for light to travel 93 million miles to the Earth from the sun, but astrophysicist Janna Levin said the energized particles causing the current wave of aurora travel a lot slower, causing the phenomenon to last for the weekend.

"Some of these mass ejections are trillions of kilograms," she said. "They're slower. So they're taking longer, but still hours, maybe tens of hours."

Here's how the solar storm looks in the South and on the East Coast

The aurora was visible across the East Coast and in the South Friday.

Here's how it looked in Chester, South Carolina.

Down in Florida, waves of color swam through the sky.

Up north in New Jersey, a purple-ish haze could be seen in the sky.

Will solar storms get more intense and risky in the future?

The answer is probably not in the short term, according to astrophysicist Hakeem Oluseyi.

He said scientists study what is constantly happening on the surface of the sun and have found a pattern.

“Geological data shows us that in the past the sun was way more active than it is today. It has cycles where it goes very quiet ... and you have events that show that the solar activity was much, much greater,” he told CNN. “So there's no evidence that we're going to see those big maxima this cycle." 

But the astrophysicist also spoke of a caveat - the limitations of modern science.

“Even though it's predictable in the short term, we still don't quite understand what creates the magnetic fields in the sun,” he said, adding: “That's why NASA has so many satellites looking at the sun.”

In Pictures: Auroras light the sky during rare solar storm

From CNN Digital's Photo Team

A series of solar flares and coronal mass ejections from the sun are creating dazzling auroras across the globe .

The rare solar storm may also disrupt communications. The last time a solar storm of this magnitude reached Earth was in October 2003, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Space Weather Prediction Center.

See more photos of the aurora from tonight.

Behind dazzling aurora could lie “real danger,” Bill Nye the Science Guy says

The massive solar storm could present “a real danger,” especially with the modern world relying so much on electricity, according to Bill Nye the Science Guy , a science educator and engineer.

Scientists are warning an increase in solar flares and coronal mass ejections from the sun have the potential to disrupt communication on Earth into the weekend. Solar flares can affect communications and GPS almost immediately because they disrupt Earth’s ionosphere, or part of the upper atmosphere. Energetic particles released by the sun can also disrupt electronics on spacecraft and affect astronauts without proper protection within 20 minutes to several hours.

In comparison to tonight's event, Nye drew comparisons with another incident in 1859, known as the Carrington Event, when telegraph communications were severely affected.

“The other thing, everybody, that is a real danger to our technological society, different from 1859, is how much we depend on electricity and our electronics and so on,” Nye said. "None of us really in the developed world could go very long without electricity."

He noted that there are systems in place to minimize the impact, but “stuff might go wrong,” stressing that not all transformers are equipped to withstand such a solar event.

“It depends on the strength of the event and it depends on how much of our infrastructures are prepared for this the sort of thing,” he said.

Bill Nye breaks down significance of the solar storm | CNN

This post has been updated with more details on solar flares' impact on electronics.

Here's where clouds will block the view of the northern lights in the US

From CNN's Angela Fritz

After an incredibly stormy week, most of the Lower 48 has clear skies to see the northern lights. But there are some areas where clouds and rainy weather are spoiling the view.

A deck of clouds is blocking the sky in the Northeast, from parts of Virginia into Maine, as an area of low pressure spins off the East Coast.

In the Midwest, the aurora will be hard to see through thick clouds in parts of Wisconsin, Michigan — including the Upper Peninsula — and Illinois.

A stripe of clouds is tracking across Texas, including Dallas-Forth Worth, and into Louisiana.

And in the Southwest, patchy clouds across the the Four Corners region could make the northern lights difficult to spot.

Aurora seen at least as far south as Georgia

Barely visible to the naked eye, the aurora can be seen in Atlanta in the 10 p.m. ET hour. 

It is easier to see through photographs using a long exposure. The photos below, taken by CNN's Eric Zerkel and Emily Smith, used 3- and 10-second exposures.

Please enable JavaScript for a better experience.

Watch CBS News

Memorial Day weekend 2024 could break travel records. Here's what to know.

By Emily Mae Czachor

May 20, 2024 / 5:04 PM EDT / CBS News

Despite another month of spring technically still ahead, travelers often view Memorial Day weekend  as an unofficial kickoff to the summer season — and traffic notoriously reflects that . Based on current forecasts, travel around the upcoming 2024 holiday next Monday, May 27, is not expected to relieve Memorial Day of its bad reputation for drivers and airline passengers. They may actually find themselves on some of the busiest highways and flights they've seen in decades.

The American Automobile Association, or AAA, warned of potentially unprecedented congestion on roads this weekend, along with airports that could be even more crowded than in years past. The organization, which looks at various economic factors and partners with other groups to project travel conditions, announced earlier this month that an estimated 43.8 million people across the United States would likely travel at least 50 miles from Thursday to Monday. That would mark a 4% increase in overall travel compared with 2023, according to AAA. It would also come close to the busiest Memorial Day weekend on record, which happened in 2005 when 44 million people left home for the holiday.

"We haven't seen Memorial Day weekend travel numbers like these in almost 20 years," said Paula Twidale, the senior vice president of the travel division at AAA, in a statement. "We're projecting an additional one million travelers this holiday weekend compared to 2019, which not only means we're exceeding pre-pandemic levels but also signals a very busy summer travel season ahead."  

For those planning to hit the road or board a plane this weekend, here's what to know.

Prepare to hit traffic

Memorial Day weekend in 2024 is expected to set a new record for road trips, according to AAA. The organization has estimated that 38.4 million people will travel in cars over the course of the weekend, which would be the biggest number recorded around this particular holiday since the group first started keeping track of Memorial Day travel patterns in 2000. 

Car rental company Hertz told AAA that demand for rentals this year will be highest in Atlanta, Boston, Las Vegas and Orlando, with most renters scheduled to pick up their cars on Thursday and Friday.

In general, drivers hoping to beat the traffic, or at least face less of it, should avoid the roads during afternoon hours on any day of the long weekend. Citing transit data from INRIX , AAA said the worst times to travel by car , in any U.S. time zone, are between 12 p.m. and 6 p.m. on Thursday, between 12 p.m. and 7 p.m. on Friday, between 2 p.m. and 5 p.m. on Saturday, between 3 p.m. and 7 p.m. on Sunday, and between 3 p.m. and 7 p.m. on Monday. 

The best times to drive will be before 11 a.m. or after 7 p.m. on Thursday, before 11 a.m. or after 8 p.m. on Friday, before 1 p.m. or after 6 p.m. on Saturday, before 1 p.m. on Sunday, and after 7 p.m. on Monday.

Airports will be crowded

Airports across the country are bracing for another spike in travelers, following an upward trend in flights booked around Memorial Day since last year's air travel numbers exceeded pre-pandemic levels. An estimated 3.51 million people are projected to fly this weekend, according to AAA, which is up from 3.35 million who traveled on planes to their destinations last year. If as many people fly as expected, this will be the most crowded Memorial Day weekend at airports since 2005, when AAA said 3.64 million people caught flights for the holiday.

United Airlines said more than 500,000 people are expected to fly each day from Thursday to Tuesday, which would be the airline's busiest Memorial Day weekend on record. Delta said 3 million people are expected to fly on its planes over that six-day period and American Airlines said it expects 3.9 million people to fly over the weekend.

Public transportation tips

Any of the projected 1.9 million people who use public transit systems to get to where they're going this weekend can plan ahead, too. INRIX projections show metro riders will face a degree of congestion in major cities, including Atlanta, Boston, Chicago, Denver, Detroit, Houston, Los Angeles, Minneapolis, New York, Philadelphia, Portland, Oregon, San Diego, San Francisco, Seattle, Tampa and Washington, D.C. Congestion on metros is expected to peak in those places in the late afternoon, early evening and mid-morning each day between Thursday and Monday. 

Forecasts suggest D.C., Los Angeles, Houston and Tampa will see the largest jumps in metro crowding compared with their respective norms. The worst is projected for one route from Gainesville to Tampa, where INRIX said metro congestion on Sunday at 9 a.m. local time could be 88% higher than usual.

Kris Van Cleave contributed reporting.

• Memorial Day

Emily Mae Czachor is a reporter and news editor at CBSNews.com. She covers breaking news, often focusing on crime and extreme weather. Emily Mae has previously written for outlets including the Los Angeles Times, BuzzFeed and Newsweek.

More from CBS News

Best home deals and finds at the Target Memorial Day sale

Best beach wagons for Memorial Day weekend and beyond

Frontier CEO claims passengers are abusing wheelchair services

Fired up about barbecue costs this Memorial Day? Blame the condiments.

How to Travel Stress-Free This Memorial Day Weekend

T his Memorial Day weekend, 43.8 million travelers are expected to hit the road to kick off the summer season.

Whether you’re staying local or spending the weekend out of town, be prepared for crowds. “It's going to be busy, no matter what you do,” says Christina Jelski, a senior editor with Northstar Travel Group’s Travel Weekly. “Leave early, give yourself plenty of wiggle room, and go in with the expectation that it's going to be crowded and delays [might] happen.”

Ahead of the busy weekend, TIME spoke to experts who shared their tips on how to make the most of the holiday no matter where you are.  

Think ahead

A little planning can go a long way when it comes to buying supplies for a weekend barbeque or booking passes for national parks— taking the time to get what you need ahead of the long weekend can save you a headache down the line. 

“Everyone talks about the mad rush at the airport and on the roads, but there's also a mad rush at the grocery stores,” says Erika Richter, VP of Communications & Marketing at the American Society of Travel Advisors. 

The same goes for your travel itinerary. Experts recommend creating a backup plan in case there are delays or cancellations. “If your flight’s delayed or canceled because during the holidays, you can't easily grab another flight,” says Karen Schaler, the founder of Travel Therapy. She recommends looking into alternative travel routes or backup flights in advance. “Do not count on the airlines to find you something over the holidays. If your flight is canceled, often [automatic booking] will rebook you for after the holidays,” she says.

Be creative with your travel plans

To beat the traffic, keep an eye out for destinations you can visit by train , especially if you live in the Northeast. “You could easily plan a quick weekend getaway by relying primarily on train service if you live somewhere that is well connected by train lines,” says Jelski, who notes that some hotels and resorts even provide shuttle or car service to pick you up from the station. 

It also helps to be open minded about where you plan to go—especially if you’re planning a last minute trip. “If you're looking to go last minute somewhere for the holidays, you're not going to pick the top 20 places that come to mind,” says Schaler. “If it came to your mind, it's going to come to somebody else's.”

Find ways to keep yourself entertained

Despite the excitement travel brings, a delayed flight or traffic jam can easily dampen the mood. To stave off boredom, Richter recommends packing games— like a pair of dice or a deck of cards—to pass the time while traveling. You can also create a shared playlist with your family or friends to listen to during your trip.“There’s something for everybody—and no one’s fighting over the music,” she says. 

Don’t forget to pack a portable charger. “If you're delayed or if you're just trying to recharge and you can't find one, you’re going to want to have your own,” says Schaler. 

Look around your neighborhood

You don’t have to travel far to have a good time, experts say. Many towns host free holiday parades, festivals, and concerts that help support the community. If you have kids, something as simple as making s’mores or bringing out glow sticks after dark can contribute to a fun weekend. “Even if you're not going anywhere, I would still think about what kind of memories you want to create,” says Richter.

It helps to ground a staycation in a specific theme, says Schaler, whether that be an outdoor day hiking local trails or a global food crawl through different cuisines. If you do decide to take a staycation, create boundaries—and stick to them. “Make sure you go all in,” Schaler says. “You can't be answering phone calls and doing a little work and then say, ‘This is my spa day.’”

More Must-Reads from TIME

• Javier Milei’s Radical Plan to Transform Argentina
• The New Face of Doctor Who
• How Private Donors Shape Birth-Control Choices
• What Happens if Trump Is Convicted ? Your Questions, Answered
• The Deadly Digital Frontiers at the Border
• Scientists Are Finding Out Just How Toxic Your Stuff Is
• The 31 Most Anticipated Movies of Summer 2024
• Want Weekly Recs on What to Watch, Read, and More? Sign Up for Worth Your Time

Write to Simmone Shah at [email protected]

Memorial Day Weekend 2024: Best and worst times to drive in DC region

Record number of drivers expected to travel this memorial day weekend.

A record number of drivers, including many in the Washington, D.C. region, are expected to hit the roads this Memorial Day holiday weekend.

WASHINGTON - A record number of drivers, including many in the Washington, D.C. region, are expected to hop in the car and hit the road as they get the summer travel season started this Memorial Day weekend, according to AAA Mid-Atlantic.

Nationally, AAA predicts nearly 44 million people will travel 50 or more miles for the holiday with around 38.4 million making those trips by car. In the Washington-metro area, that breaks down to more than one-million total holiday travelers, with over 933,000 of them getting behind the wheels of their automobiles.

Holiday weekend drivers can expect similar gas prices to last year. The AAA National Average on Thursday morning was $3.61 per gallon compared to 2023 when the national average was roughly $3.57. Prices in the District came in slightly higher at $3.70 on Thursday.

The unofficial start to summer is traditionally one of the busiest periods of travel on U.S. roadways. Here’s a look at the best and worst times to drive this weekend.

MEMORIAL DAY 2024: BEST & WORST TIMES TO TRAVEL ON THE ROAD

Thursday, May 23

Worst Travel Time | 12:00 – 6: 00 PM 

Best Travel Time | Before 11 AM, After 7PM 

Friday, May 24

Worst Travel Time | 12:00 – 7:00 PM 

Best Travel Time | Before 11AM, After 8 PM 

Saturday, May 25

Worst Travel Time | 2:00 – 5:00 PM 

Best Travel Time | Before 1 PM, After 6 PM 

Sunday, May 26

Worst Travel Time | 3:00 – 7:00 PM 

Best Travel Time | Before 1 PM 

Monday, May 27

Best Travel Time | After 7 PM 

In the Washington, D.C. region, the peak congestion period over the holiday weekend comes on Friday around 2:15 p.m. along the Baltimore / Washington Parkway. 

Peak Congestion by Metro 

Washington, DC to Baltimore via Balt/Wash Pkwy N 

Peak Congestion Period: Friday 2:15 PM 

Est. Travel Time: 1 hour 21 minutes 

Increase Compared to Typical: 72%

• Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

How to Navigate London’s Wondrous (and Very Big) V&A Museum

Paintings, ceramics, photography, fashion, furniture and more: The Victoria and Albert Museum is a treasure trove of art and design. Here’s one besotted visitor’s plan for taking it all in.

By Andrew Ferren

Andrew Ferren, a frequent contributor to the Travel section, has visited the V&A dozens of times and looks forward to exploring the new satellite buildings when they open in East London in 2025.

Even for someone who loves getting lost in museums — especially “everything museums” like the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York — London’s Victoria and Albert Museum might have been my Waterloo. The statistics are daunting: 5,000 years of artistic production with more than 60,000 works on view (from a collection of some 2.8 million) in about 150 galleries beneath 21 acres of roof.

The V&A typically draws around 3 million annual visitors, but even on the busiest days, the museum has the space and setup to largely avoid the sense of competing with the crowds. Since visiting the permanent collection is free (some exhibitions cost up to 20 pounds, or about $25), once you’re in the door you can just start wandering. Step right for medieval mosaics and Renaissance tapestries or go deep for 1940s Paris fashion, Baroque sculpture and, beyond that, Buddhist art.

It’s easy to spend an entire day in the V&A. Here’s a plan for making the most of your visit. But first a bit of background.

An eclectic treasure trove

If the British Museum is known as Britain’s attic — an abundance of artistic and cultural relics from the realm and around the globe — then the V&A is the country’s classroom. It, too, is a trove of exemplary works, from exquisite Raphael drawings to groovy 1970s plastic radios; Coptic tunics to Alexander McQueen couture gowns; vividly hued Islamic tiles to a bunch of grand English beds. These objects were displayed not just to delight connoisseurs, but to provide great art and ideas to educate British designers, manufacturers and workers in good taste and technical prowess.

The museum was the pet project of Prince Albert, consort to Queen Victoria, who had seen firsthand that British manufactured goods were not always top of the class. By displaying applied arts (textiles, ceramics, glass and other manufactured objects) alongside fine arts (architecture, painting and sculpture), the new museum would democratize aesthetic appreciation and inspire better designs for better products.

Originally known as the South Kensington Museum, the V&A opened in 1857 in temporary structures while new buildings were constructed. Incorporated into the new museum were libraries and schools for science and art, including one for women. The leading artists of the time, such as Frederic Leighton and William Morris, contributed to its décor. Such was its embrace of modernity, that the world’s first museum exhibition of photography (the medium was “invented’ only in the 1820s) was held here in 1858.

Though Prince Albert died in 1861, the museum continued to expand. In 1899, Queen Victoria laid the cornerstone of a grand new entrance wing along Cromwell Road and renamed the complex the Victoria and Albert Museum.

If that sounds fusty, it’s not. More than 165 years after its opening, the V&A’s pioneering spirit hasn’t faded. Its fashion blockbusters, like “Naomi: In Fashion,” celebrating the model Naomi Campbell (opening June 22), are must-see shows. And its outreach programs, studio classes and parties engage the public as few museums do. Recently, the V&A’s reach has been growing, with offshoots such as the Scottish V&A Dundee , a kid-centric Young V&A and two new museum buildings — one featuring nearly 250,000 works — opening in East London in 2025.

Many contemporary artists and designers claim the V&A as among their favorite museums, and one to which they return again and again. Though neither artist nor designer, I, too, claim the V&A as a favorite museum and have visited dozens of times, often for less than an hour just to wow my young kids with the monumental plaster casts of European monuments or even just to get out of the rain.

But I knew there were still sections I’d never visited. So, after an absence of three years, I spent a day there and came up with a game plan for others to navigate those vast halls.

Get there at 10 a.m., when the doors open, so you can breeze through the ground-floor galleries while they are still virtually empty and then head to more remote parts.

Since fabrics are fragile and fade, the fashion exhibits are changed regularly and there’s always something fresh and engaging to see. From there, wind past the entrance through the arts of Asia, from the elegantly simple furniture of Ming China to the intricately carved lacquerware of Japan, to the eye-poppingly vivid blue tile reliefs and stunning silk carpets such as the 16th-century Ardibil carpet from Persia.

Then into the Cast Courts, three huge galleries packed with full-size reproductions — plaster and metal casts — of sculptures and building fragments from around Europe. Exact copies of medieval tombs line the floor while masterpieces like Michelangelo’s David, Trajan’s Column and Renaissance church facades rise toward the ceiling. One can easily get stuck here, awed by the scale and charmed by the concept of corralling massive replicas from across the centuries into a playground for architecture buffs.

From there it’s an easy slide into the adjacent medieval and Renaissance galleries, which cover Europe from 300 to 1600, and where the colorful fourth- and fifth-century tapestry fragments on view or the radiant gold-backed mosaics from Ravenna, Italy, reveal that the Dark Ages were not entirely devoid of light and color.

The later galleries reveal just how connected and sophisticated many parts of Europe were in the Renaissance. Exquisite regional products — metalwork and armor from Germany, shimmering lusterware ceramics from Spain, tapestries from Brussels — became sought after on an international marketplace.

Carving your own path

In such a sprawling museum, there is no single logical or even chronological path to follow. For many, that’s part of the V&A’s appeal: the quirky juxtapositions one encounters roaming its six floors (the ground floor is numbered zero, so the “fourth floor” is actually the fifth level; the V&A also has a -1 basement level).

So on my visit, once the galleries started filling up at midday, I took the elevator to the remote fourth-floor ceramics galleries and then made my way to the lower floors.

On the fourth floor, it feels as if virtually everything ever made of clay or porcelain — Ming, majolica, Meissen, you name it — is displayed in floor-to-ceiling cases, including stacks of Chinese bowls salvaged from a ship that sank in 1400 off the Malay Peninsula.

Just when you think one can’t stretch the clay any further, you get to a display about Josiah Wedgwood and his innovative Jasperware that became the rage around the world in the 18th century. (The V&A also has an outpost in Stoke-on-Trent dedicated entirely to Wedgwood). The remaining fourth-floor galleries showcase furniture from the last 600 years.

The third floor offers a similar range of media and epochs — from international glass in all its facets to architectural models. One might expect Venetian Murano glass to reign supreme, but the quirky and colorful 18th-century German enameled glass, as well as green-hued glasses and goblets adorned with blobs of glass steal the show.

On the second floor, a network of long galleries offers deep dives into religious stained glass, small-scale bronze sculptures, English paintings and drawings, as well as tapestries. Nearby, gorgeous murals by Frederic Leighton push the V&A propaganda in themes like “The Arts Applied to War” and “The Arts Applied to Peace.”

Also on the second floor, the Photography Center recently expanded its galleries to become Britain’s largest photography exhibition center. Part of a display called “Design: 1900-Now,” features a recent acquisition: a store-bought snorkeling mask that had been adapted by an Italian designer into a functioning oxygen mask during the darkest days of the Covid crisis in 2020.

In a country famous for its crown jewels, the V&A’s spot-lit jewelry gallery packs in everything from fifth-century Byzantine bracelets to jaunty 1970s body jewelry. Standouts include the Townshend jewels — a virtual encyclopedia of gemstones, from colored diamonds to opals, each set in individual rings and displayed in swirls of brilliant color.

And finally, stretching almost across the entire second floor is a display of every imaginable type of ironwork. Seeing these works, such as the monumental 19th-century Gothic Revival choir screen from Salisbury Cathedral, calls to mind the Goethe quote that “architecture is frozen music.”

Take a break then keep going

Even if you’re not hungry, head to the ground level to the Refreshment Rooms, the world’s first museum cafe, which opened in 1868. Designed by the leading talents of the day — James Gamble, William Morris, Philip Webb, Edward Burne-Jones and Edward J. Poynter — the original decoration remains largely intact, a snapshot of Victorian modernity. Back in the day, each room had a different menu and proposed clientele, but today, for about £10, visitors can choose from a buffet of hot English fare, quiches, sandwiches, beer, wine or soft drinks, and take their meal into whichever room they find most pleasing.

Back in the galleries, I had saved what I considered the best for last: some two dozen British galleries (spread between levels 1 and 3) that tell the country’s history from the Tudors to the Victorians through paintings, furniture, clothing, musical instruments, textiles and truly fabulous beds, including the Great Bed of Ware, a massive four-poster built in 1590 for an inn. It measures nearly 11 feet on each side, supposedly able to accommodate four couples. Centuries-old graffiti covers practically every plank, and its fame merited a mention in Shakespeare’s “Twelfth Night”: “… as many lies as will lie in thy sheet of paper, although the sheet were big enough for the bed of Ware.”

And then finally, the most extraordinary works in the museum, shown in a cathedral-like space: the famous Rafael cartoons for the tapestries that were created to adorn the Sistine Chapel in 1515-16. Commissioned by Pope Leo X, Raphael painted the designs on paper, which would have been used as the guide for the weavers to follow. Now owned by King Charles III and considered among the greatest works of Renaissance art, they were created as part of a manufacturing process, so it seems wholly appropriate they are on loan to the V&A, where fine art and manufacturing go hand in hand.

Follow New York Times Travel on Instagram and sign up for our weekly Travel Dispatch newsletter to get expert tips on traveling smarter and inspiration for your next vacation. Dreaming up a future getaway or just armchair traveling? Check out our 52 Places to Go in 2024 .

Open Up Your World

Considering a trip, or just some armchair traveling here are some ideas..

52 Places:  Why do we travel? For food, culture, adventure, natural beauty? Our 2024 list has all those elements, and more .

The Alaska Highway:  On an epic road trip, a family plots a course from Alaska to the Lower 48, passing through some of Canada’s most spectacular scenery .

Minorca:  Spend 36 hours on this slow-paced Spanish island , which offers a quieter and wilder retreat than its more touristy neighbors.

Japan:  A new high-speed train stop unlocks Kaga, a destination for hot springs, nourishing food and traditional crafts , as an easy-to-reach getaway from Tokyo.

London:  The Victoria and Albert Museum is a treasure trove of art and design. Here’s one besotted visitor’s plan for taking it all in .

• Business & Tech
• Food & Drink
• Arts & Entertainment

Day Around the Bay: Record Travel Volume Expected for Memorial Day Weekend

• This year’s baby falcons born atop the Berkeley Campanile now have names, after the conclusion of the annual naming contest . Since the first two chicks were hatched on Earth Day , the names are all planet Earth-themed: Aurora, Eclipse, Equinox (Nox) and Solstice (Sol). [ Berkeleyside ]
• Road and airline travel is expected to match or even exceed the all-time Memorial Day weekend travel record, with AAA predicting 44 million Americans will travel this weekend, matching the record set in 2005. Though predictably, California Highway Patrol will have all hands on deck out looking for drunk drivers, or drivers with “impairment from other substances.” [ NBC Bay Area ]
• Alcatraz ferry boat drivers authorized going on strike by a 91%-9% vote, though that doesn’t necessarily mean they will go on strike. Though Hornblower-owned Alcatraz City Cruises sounds like they might be willing to employ scabs, with their general manager telling Mission Local “If there is a labor dispute, it will have no impact on our operations.” [ Mission Local ]
• The co-founders of techie cult-hit coffee chain Sightglass Coffee have stepped down from the company, and former Starbucks national account executive Sharon Healy is taking over as CEO. [ SFGate ]
• The California DMV is creating options for registration, renewals, and other services online, in hopes of shortening lines and reducing in-person customer visits by 200,000 a month. [ KGO ]
• Puzzled Berkeley police found a seemingly domesticated pig running around Thursday at McGee Avenue and Bancroft Way, and they would prefer the rightful owner of this pig come forward as soon as possible. [ KRON4 ]

Image: Joe Kukura, SFist

Subscribe to SFist - San Francisco News, Restaurants, Events, & Sports

Get the latest posts delivered right to your inbox

Stay up to date! Get all the latest & greatest posts delivered straight to your inbox