International Journal of Science and Research (IJSR)

ISSN: 2319-7064
SJIF (2022): 7.942

The Physics of Time Travel

Maher Ali Rusho

Abstract: Time Travel in a Quantum Mechanical Universe. Time is mysterious. Philosophers and scientists have pondered the
question of what time might be for centuries and yet till this day, we don’t know what it is. Everyone talks about time; in fact, it’s the
most common nouns per the Oxford Dictionary. It’s in everything from history to music to culture. Despite time’s mysterious nature
there are a lot of things that we can discuss in a logical manner. Time travel on the other hand is even more mysterious. It’s a subject
that captured the interests of great writers like H.G. Wells and Mark Twain and has been the premise of T.V. shows and movies.
Everyone would love the idea of getting on Doc Brown’s DeLorean and taking a blast to the past but it isn’t as simple as science fiction
would put it. In this work, I explore the nature of time and take a side on several fundamental questions about it. I then explore a model
of time that I created based on my research which allows for the possibility of time travel. I don’t believe that this model accurately
models time (or is complete) but in my opinion, this would be the best model that avoids a lot of paradoxes of time travel assuming time
travel is possible. Finally, I explore several paradoxes of time and explain how my model of time could solve them to a certain extent.

Keywords: Time Travel, Physics, Biological Clock, Anti-Particle, History Of Time

1. The Concept of Time is useful, would it be useful without putting it in context

(such as what day it is)? Time was and still is being put into
(This section is based on the works of Tannenbaum et. al context using calendars. After centuries of progress, from
1958) Tempus Fugit is the Latin phrase for time flies, the the Egyptian Calendar to the Biblical Hebrew Calendar to
situation that we are all too familiar with. We live our lives the Julian calendar, we ended up with the calendar used by
by the clock. Time has become an integral part of our lives; many nations today, the Gregorian calendar. History has
it controls when we wake up, what time we have to be at a shown us that the process of standardizing time had caused
particular place and even when we decide to die for the sake riots and the spilling of blood such as during the French
of our country. How did we come to “measure” time? Who Revolution when the government forced people to use the
decided how we measured time? Why is it that when it is “Calendar of Reason” which had 12 months of 30 days and
6:00 a.m. in New York it is 12:00 p.m. in Paris? Primitive left behind 5 days to honor poor people. Eventually over the
humans’ first division of time was light and darkness (i.e. passage of history we ended up with the system of time you
day and night) but they eventually realized that smaller and I are familiar with. While we know how to measure time
periods of time were needed to organize their daily life. In and utilize it to organize our daily lives, we still find it
most parts of the modern world this division of the day is in difficult to answer a deceptively simple question: what is
twenty-four equal parts (hours). This division came about time?
from the Babylonians who used a number system based on
twelve. The system was adapted by the Greeks and the What is Time? You cannot see, hear or touch time but you
Romans and eventually passed down through medieval feel it flow. You intuitively have a sense of what time it is.
Europe to the modern Western civilization. For convenience, For example, you know it’s almost dinner time without
the hour was divided into sixty equal parts (minutes) and looking at the clock. But there are many questions you could
each minute was divided in sixty equal parts (seconds). In ask: what is time? Does it really exist? Is it just a series of
1884, an international conference was held in Washington events? Is it linear? Does time have a beginning or an end?
D.C. where representatives of many 2 governments decided In this section I will try to give you, the reader, a general
that the meridian line that passed through the observatory in idea of what time is and how I view time. The discussion of
Greenwich should be the initial meridian and approved a time could be hundreds of pages long but I will briefly
plan to divide the entire world into fifteen degree widths introduce you to only a few concepts of time discussed by
resulting in twenty- four time zones. Therefore, when it is academics that I believe are relevant to the discussion of
6:00 a.m. in New York it is 12:00 p.m. in Paris. Measuring time travel. I discuss eight different concepts related to time
the passage of time required a great deal of insight and in the given order: classifications of time, subjectivity and
innovation. Before the invention of mechanical clocks, time objectivity of time, time and change, the beginning and end
was measured using a variety of methods. Greeks and of time, the topology of time, continuity of time, flow of
Romans used brilliant stars such as the Big Dipper time and finally, the arrow of time. I ordered these concepts
constellation to tell time. Many ancient civilizations used as stated because I believe that there is a logical question
water, sand and fire to tell time, such as one-hour candle you could ask that connects one concept to the next. I.
clocks, fire alarm clocks (used by the Chinese), sand hour Classifications of time can be classified as physical,
glasses and water-based Clepsydras (used by the Egyptians). psychological and biological. Biological time is captured by
Eventually, in the 1200s mechanical clock tower systems the internal clocks within various organisms such as the
started to grow and, as time passed, improved in ways such rhythm of one’s heartbeat. Psychological time is how we
as switching from man power to electrical power. Portable experience time such as how we feel as if time passes fast in
forms of time keeping such as Nuremberg eggs (similar to a moments of 3 excitements. Physical time is the time that is
pocket watch) started growing and after a while, used in physics and the time that our clocks measure
wristwatches gained popularity after World War I. Finally, (Dowden 2016). While physical time is what this paper
time keeping came to a point where we tell time using many mainly concerns itself with, I believe it is important to have
ways including using cellular devices. While measuring time a brief understanding of psychological time. The reason why
Volume 11 Issue 4, April 2022
www.ijsr.net
Licensed Under Creative Commons Attribution CC BY
Paper ID: SR22414163839 DOI: 10.21275/SR22414163839 757
 International Journal of Science and Research (IJSR)
ISSN: 2319-7064
SJIF (2022): 7.942
we feel the continuity of time is because our brain process proposal, everyone who departs from geodesic motion —
events such that we experience a scenario. For example, if due to the slightest nudge from a non-gravitational force —
you make a cheese burger you first make the burger then counts as a time traveler, and on the second proposal
cook it and finally assemble the burger. everyone who moves with respect to the cosmologically
privileged frame earns the distinction. Just imagine: even if
You remember it in a order, i.e. as a scenario. The brain the earth didn’t move with respect to the privileged frame,
takes a short amount of time to interpret events and puts the you would be time-traveling each time you go to the fridge.
events in context for you. If you touch your toe and your Admittedly, Lewis’s definition does seem to capture an
head at the same time, it is interpreted as if both events intuitive sense of “time travel” that is useful for some
happened at the same time even though it may have taken purposes. But it is too broad to capture a useful distinction
longer for the signal from the toe to reach the brain. within relativity, given that nearly every observer would
According to philosopher Craig Calendar, this “now” qualify as a time-traveler.
experience for two simultaneous events must be less than
250 milliseconds (Dowden 2016). Similarly, the processes in Thankfully, an alternative conception of time travel that
the brain cause the “time dilation effect” where a short avoids these problems is close at hand in GR. There is a
period of time may feel longer. For example, a person would sense in which GR permits time travel into the past: it allows
remember a car crash vividly as if it happened for a longer space times containing closed timelike curves (CTCs), i.e.
period of time even if it lasted only a second or two. Given space times with unusual causal structures.2 Loosely
the role of neurological processes in our experience of time, speaking, a CTC is a path in space and time that can be
one may come to believe that time is mind-dependent carved out by a material object and is closed, i.e. returns to
(subjective) but is time subjective or is it objective? its starting point not just in space, but also in time. A curve
is everywhere timelike, or simply time like, if the tangent
2. The Paradoxes of Time Travel vectors to the curve are time like at each point of the curve.
A timelike curve represents a possible spatio-temporal path
So what is time travel? The standard answer among carved out by material objects, a so-called world line. Of
philosophers, given by David Lewis (1976, 68), is that time course, we also presuppose that the curves representing
travel occurs in case the temporal separation between observers are 2Strictly speaking, as we will see in §3,
departure and arrival does not equal the duration of the spacetimes with CTCs do not allow a global time ordering
journey. and thus there is no global division into past and future. But
it is always possible to define a local time ordering within a
However, this is not a necessary condition for time travel. small neighborhood of a given point, and a CTC passing
Presumably, Lewis and everyone else should want to include through the point would connect the point with its own past
a case when the time lapse between departure and arrival according to this locally defined time ordering. could be
equals the duration of the journey but the arrival occurs instantiated by material objects. It is evident that the
before the departure. presence of worldlines that intersect themselves is a
sufficient condition for time travel to take place. For the rest
More significantly, we also claim that Lewis’s definition of this essay, we shall also assume that it is a necessary
does not state a sufficient condition for an interesting sense condition.3
of time travel within the context of modern physics. Readers
familiar with special relativity may have already asked Both the popular and the philosophical time travel literature
themselves what Lewis might mean by temporal separation contain vivid debates regarding whether time travel in this
between arrival and departure. Due to the relativity of sense is logically impossible, conceptually or metaphysically
simultaneity, observers in relative motion will generally incoherent, or at least improbable. Let us address these three
disagree about the temporal separation between events. We issues in turn.
could try to skirt this difficulty by defining the temporal
separation as the maximal value measured by any observer Logical Impossibility: The Grandfather Paradox
(corresponding to the proper time elapsed along a geodesic Although less prevalent than a decade or two ago, the belief
connecting the two events) or by taking advantage of that various paradoxes establish the logical or metaphysical
symmetries in a particular model in general relativity. For impossibility of time travel is still widespread in philosophy.
example, we could exploit the symmetries of the models The grandfather paradox introduced above is no doubt the
usually taken to be the best approximation to the large- scale most prominent of these paradoxes. It allegedly illustrates
structure of space time, the Friedmann-Lemaˆıtre- either how time travel implies an inconsistent past and is
Robertson-Walker (FLRW) space times, in order to define thus ruled out by logic,4 or that time travel is extremely
an objectively preferred frame of simultaneity, a privileged improbable. Other time travel paradoxes include the so-
way of foliating the four-dimensional space time into space called predestination and ontological paradoxes. A paradox
and time. of predestination arises when the protagonist brings about an
event exactly by trying to prevent it. These paradoxes are
The objective time elapsed between departure and arrival not confined to scenarios involving time travel, although
would be the time lapse according to this cosmologically they add to the entertainment value of the latter. Just
privileged frame. Either of these proposals would allow us imagine a time traveller traveling into her own past in an
to assign an objective meaning to Lewis’s temporal attempt to prevent the conception of her father, whose
separation between arrival and departure. But the resulting actions instead kindle the romance between her
definition of time travel is far too promiscuous. On the first grandparents. The related ontological paradox can be

Volume 11 Issue 4, April 2022

www.ijsr.net
Licensed Under Creative Commons Attribution CC BY
Paper ID: SR22414163839 DOI: 10.21275/SR22414163839 758
 International Journal of Science and Research (IJSR)
ISSN: 2319-7064
SJIF (2022): 7.942
exemplified by the story of the unpainted painting. One day, paradoxes don’t go far in ruling out time travel.
an older version of myself knocks on my door, presenting a
wonderful painting to me. I keep the tableau until I have The grandfather paradox cannot be dismissed so easily.
saved enough money to be able to afford a time machine. I Grandpa cannot simultaneously sire and not sire the parent
then use the time machine to travel back in time to revisit of the time traveller. The central point is that the grandfather
my younger self, taking the painting along. I ring the paradox does not rule out time travel simpliciter, but only
doorbell of my earlier apartment, and deliver the painting to inconsistent scenarios. In fact, all self-contradictory
my younger self. Who has painted the picture? It seems as if scenarios are forbidden, regardless of whether they involve
nobody did since there is no cause of the painting. All the time travel or not. Various options can be pursued in
events on the CTC have just the sort of garden- variety attempts to resolve the grandfather paradox. Apart from the
causes as events not transpiring on CTCs do. The causal costly rejection of bivalent logic, one can, following Jack
loop as a whole, however, does not seem to have an Meiland (1974), postulate a two-dimensional model of time
originating cause. For all these reasons, the popular such that every moment entertains its own past which is
argument goes, causal loops cannot exist. distinct from the times that preceded that moment.
According to this proposal, at a given moment there are two
Lewis (1976) has argued that although such scenarios branches, one containing the actual events that preceded it,
contravene our causal intuitions, it is not in principle and the other representing an alternative past into which
impossible that uncaused and thus unexplainable events in time travel can lead. If one travels back in time, then, one
fact occur. According to Lewis, there are such unexplainable doesn’t arrive at a time that preceded the departure, but
events or facts such as the existence of God, the big bang, or rather at a time in the past of the moment when one
the decay of a tritium atom. True. Who would have expected departed. Time, on this understanding, is represented by a
that time travel scenarios will be easily reconcilable with our two-dimensional plane rather than a one-dimensional line.
causal intuitions anyway? The fact that phenomena Following Lewis (1976, 68), we do not find this resolution
transpiring in a time-travel universe violate our causal particularly attractive, primarily because the time traveller
intuitions, however, is no proof of the impossibility of such would on this conception never be able to revisit the very
a world. Analogously, predestination paradoxes can be past moment when Grandpa first met Grandma. She would
rejected as grounds for believing that time travel is only be able to reach a “copy” of this moment on the past
impossible: although they undoubtedly exude irony, the very line of the moment of when the time machine is switched
fact that it was the time on. The event reached would thus be different from the one
steeped in history that the intrepid traveller intended as the
3
This might seem to be overly restrictive, as it would appear goal of her journey. Whatever travel this is, it is not the time
to rule out a scenario in which the time traveler follows a travel characterized above.
nearly closed trajectory rather than a CTC. We agree that
this would also constitute time travel, but any spacetime An obvious, but rarely seriously entertained option tries to
which admits such trajectories would also contain CTCs make sense of time travel by allowing the universe to
(even if they are not instantiated by material objects) — so bifurcate each time consistency would otherwise be violated.
our necessary condition still holds. Monton (2009) argues The instant the time traveller arrives in her past, the
that CTCs should not be taken as a necessary condition for spacetime splits into two “sheets.” (Unlike Meiland’s
time travel, but we believe that Monton’s argument fails. If proposal the branches are “created” by time travel, they are
one rules out discontinuous worldlines and similarly not already in existence)5 This branching does not happen in
unphysical constructs, then CTCs are arguably the only time or space alone, but in the overall causal structure of the
Lorentz-invariant way of implementing time travel. Cf. spacetime in which the journey takes place. In particular, the
Arntzenius (2006, Sec. 3) for an alternative transposition of causal future of the event where the traveller arrives must
a Lewis-like understanding of time travel into the context of permit “two-valuedness.” In the case of such a “multiverse,”
GR. We don’t see, however, how this understanding can be the adventurous traveller not only journeys in time, but also
extended to cover non-time orientable spacetimes, as to a branch distinct from the one in which she departed. A
Arntzenius seems to think (2006, 604f). multiverse with more than one actual past history does
timelessly contain the killing of Grandfather, but only in one
4
In a dialethic logic, i.e. a logic in which contradictions can of the branches (cf. Lewis 1976, 80). Interaction between the
be true, and perhaps in other paraconsistent logics, such co-existing branches is solely possible by time travel, which
contradiction need not imply the impossibility of time travel. does arguably not deserve to qualify for time travel as it is
A possible reply to the grandfather paradox is thus the not a journey back in the traveller’s “own” time. But the
rejection of classical logic. This price is considered too high threat of inconsistency is surely banned if history along any
in this article, particularly also because the contradiction can given branch is consistent. This would for example mean
be resolved by other means, as will be argued shortly. that everybody’s worldlines have an unambiguous beginning
and end points in all branches (see Fig. 1).
5
traveller who enabled her grandparents’ union is not in any
way logically problematic. What is important as far as logic Does such travel in a multiverse change the past? Only in
is concerned is that the time traveller has timelessly been the sense that through the traveling activity, more and more
conceived at some point during the year before her birth and branches of past histories seem to pop into existence. If this
has not been “added” or “removed” later. If it occurred, it is the picture, then time traveling necessitates an inflation of
occurred; if it didn’t, it didn’t. So despite their branches as it becomes more popular. But since if it is
persuasiveness, the ontological and the predestination possible to change the past, we run into the same difficulties

Volume 11 Issue 4, April 2022

www.ijsr.net
Licensed Under Creative Commons Attribution CC BY
Paper ID: SR22414163839 DOI: 10.21275/SR22414163839 759
 International Journal of Science and Research (IJSR)
ISSN: 2319-7064
SJIF (2022): 7.942
as with the grandfather paradox again, these branches must John Friedman et al. (1990) encode the demand that CCs are
in fact eternally co-exist with the sheet we are actually living operative in their principle of self-consistency, which “states
in. Thus, if time travel is physically possible, then there will that the only solutions to the laws of physics that can occur
be an infinitude of branches corresponding to all the possible locally in the real Universe are those which are globally self-
ways in which time travel could occur. Thus, there will be consistent.”8 This principle guarantees the validity of the
an infinity of actual 5A further contrast between the local-to-global property, at the cost of introducing non-
proposals is that on Meiland’s view the time traveller will trivial CCs.
not have complete freedom as to how to affect the past
since, presumably, both pasts must lead to the same present How should we think of CCs? We can think of them as
moment located at the bifurcation point. This constraint consisting of restrictions imposed on the initial data of, say,
seems to be absent in scenarios with branching structures a matter field for point mass particles at a given point.
into the future, at least if one grants the causal fork Assume a single particle that moves along an inertial
asymmetry (cf. Horwich 1987, 97-99). worldline in accordance with the dynamical laws that apply
for

6Cf. Visser (1996, 250-255). The concerned manifolds have

to be non- Hausdorff in order to permit branching, as
discussed in Douglas (1997). For a thorough critique of
branching spacetimes, cf. Earman (2008).

7Cf. Earman (1995, 173) for a more mathematically

rigorous account.
G’s death T’s departure T’s birth
T’s death 8
Friedman et al. (1990, 1916f), emphasis in original. For
G’s death T’s departure T’s birth more advocacy of CCs, see Malament (1985b, 98f) and
T’s death T’s travel Earman (1995, passim). They both see the particle and
G’s death G’s birth T’s travel assume further that the worldline is a CTC. The CCs would
G’s death G’s birth then have to restrict the choice of the initial velocity of the
Figure 1: The worldlines of the time traveller T (red) and of particle such that its trajectory smoothly joins itself after one
Grandpa G (green) according to the multiverse proposal. loop. More generally, however, the CCs for any
Note that both figures are of the same multiverse; they are macroscopic object involving more complex physical
just highlighting different worldlines. processes would become very complicated indeed if spelt
out explicitly. Consider a more concrete example involving
Past histories of the multiverse timelessly containing all time macroscopic objects, such as a spacecraft venturing out to
traveling activity. Even though such a construction does not explore deep space only to discover that it in fact traces out
live up to an ideal of metaphysical austerity, logic does not a CTC. Here, the spacecraft would have to go over into its
preclude it. However, in order to accommodate multi-valued earlier self smoothly, including restoring the “original”
fields in physics — which would be necessary in such a engine temperature and settings of all onboard computers,
multiverse —, a radical rewriting of the laws of physics refueling to exactly the same amount of propellant, and so
would be required. Although topology offers manifolds forth. If the scenario included humans, it would become
which could potentially deal with multi-valuedness,6 these trickier still. The time traveller would have to rejoin exactly
new types of laws would also have to tolerate it. But we do his worldline, wearing the same clothes, with the same
not know of a dynamical theory which could deliver this. shave, with each hair precisely in the same position, with his
heart beat cycle exactly coinciding, his memory reset to the
We concur with Earman (1995) (and, unsurprisingly, with state when he entered the CTC etc. The world is rich in
Earman et al. (2009)) that the grandfather paradox only variety and complexity, and such strong constraints appear
illustrates the fact that time-travel stories, just like any other to conflict with our experience. However, it is not clear how
story, must satisfy certain consistency constraints (CCs) that exactly such a conflict could arise: if the relevant dynamical
ensure the absence of contradictions. In other words, only laws have the local-to-global property in a given spacetime
one history of the universe is to be told, and this history had with CTCs, then the CCs would be enforced regardless of
better be consistent. GR mandates that spacetimes satisfy their apparent improbability. In any case, regions of
what Earman dubbed a global-to-local property, i.e. if a set causality violations are found beyond horizons of epistemic
of tensor fields satisfy the laws of GR globally on the entire accessibility of an earth- bound observer in realistic
spacetime, then they do so locally in every region of spacetimes. Hence, if taken as an objection against the
spacetime.7 This property is shared by spacetimes with possibility of CTCs, the difficulty of accommodating
CTCs. The reverse local- to-global property would imply complex scenarios has little theoretical force.
that any local solution could be extended to a global solution
of the field equations. But this property need not hold in But it surely shatters the prospect of sending humans on a
spacetimes with CTCs: situations that are admissible journey into their own past in a way that has them instantiate
according to the local dynamical laws may lead to the totality of a CTC.
inconsistencies when evolved through a region containing
CTCs. CCs are imposed to prevent such inconsistencies. Since CCs seem to mandate what time travellers can and

Volume 11 Issue 4, April 2022

www.ijsr.net
Licensed Under Creative Commons Attribution CC BY
Paper ID: SR22414163839 DOI: 10.21275/SR22414163839 760
 International Journal of Science and Research (IJSR)
ISSN: 2319-7064
SJIF (2022): 7.942
cannot do once they have arrived in their own past, the CCs’ representing the objective lapse of time” (G odel 1949b,
insistence that there is only one past and that this past cannot 558).
be changed appears to give rise to a kind of modal paradox.
Either John Connor’s mother is killed in 1984 or she isn’t. In This conclusion does not straightforwardly carry over to GR,
case she survives, the deadliest Terminator with the highest because there is a natural way to privilege one set of “nows”
firepower cannot successfully assassinate her. This inability in a cosmological setting. The privilege can be conferred on
stands in a stark contrast to the homicidal capacities that we a sequence of “nows” defined with respect to the worldlines
would normally ascribe to an armed and highly trained of galaxies or other large scale structures. It is natural to
cyborg. The modal paradox arises because the terminator require the surfaces of simultaneity to be orthogonal to the
can strike down Connor’s mother — he has the requisite worldlines of the objects taken to define the “cosmologically
weapons, training of many years, and a meticulous plan, etc. preferred frame.” The question is then whether one can
— but simultaneously he cannot do it as Sarah Connor extend local surfaces of simultaneity satisfying this
actually survived 1984 and the Terminator would thus requirement to a global foliation for a given set of curves.
violate CCs were he to successfully kill her. Lewis (1976) For the FLRW cosmological models, as noted above, the
has resolved the looming modal inconsistency by arguing answer is yes. These models have a natural foliation, a
that “can” is ambivalently used here and that the unique way of globally decomposing spacetime into a one-
contradiction only arises as a result of a impermissible dimensional “cosmic time” and three- dimensional surfaces
equivocation. “Can” is always relative to a set of facts. If the Σ representing “instants,” orthogonal to the worldlines of
set contains the fact that Sarah has survived 1984, then the freely falling bodies. (Cosmic time in this case would
terminator will not be able kill her (in that year). If this fact correspond to the proper time measured by an observer at
is not included, however, then of course he can. The rest with respect to this privileged frame. Thus G odel’s
contradiction is only apparent and Lewis concludes that time necessary condition for an objective lapse
travel into one’s own past is not logically impossible.
25
The following papers, which we draw on below, discuss
Thus, the paradoxes invoked do not establish that logic aspects of Go del’s argument: Stein (1970), Malament
precludes time travel, although they exhibit how they (1985b), Savitt (1994), Earman (1995), Dorato (2002), Belot
constrain the sort of scenarios that can occur. Although logic (200 . Ellis (199 discusses the impact of G odel’s paper.
does not prohibit it, time travel still faces stiff resistance
26
from many philosophers. The resistance typically comes in Although von Stockum (1937) discovered a solution
one of two flavours: either it turns on the alleged describing an infinite rotating cylinder that also contains
improbability of time travel or on an argument barring the CTCs through every point, this feature of the solution was
possibility of backward- in-time causation. Let us address not discussed in print, to the best of our knowledge, prior to
both complaints in turn. Tipler (19 4 . Go del does not cite von Stockum’s work.
Others had noted the possibility of the existence of CTCs
3. Implications of Time Travel without finding an exact solution exemplifying the property
(see, e.g., Weyl (1921), p. 249). of time is satisfied in the
Given that time travel cannot be straightforwardly ruled out FLRW cosmological models, and in this sense the pre-
as incoherent or logically impossible, we now face the relativistic concept of absolute time can be recovered.
following difficult questions: In what sense is time travel
physically possible, and what does this imply regarding the But in G odel’s spacetime one cannot introduce such a
nature of time? More precisely, what are the novel conse- foliation. The space time represents a “rotating universe,” in
quences of time travel, i.e. ones that do not follow already which matter is in a state of uniform rigid rotation.27 Due to
from more familiar aspects of special or general relativity? this rotation it is not possible to define a privileged frame
As a first step towards answering these questions, we will with global “instants” similar to the frame in the FLRW
consider urt G odel’s (in) famous argument for the ideality models.28 An analogy due to Malament (1995) illustrates the
of time.25 reason for this. One can slice through a collection of parallel
fibers with a single plane that is orthogonal to them all, but
G odel (1949a) was the first to clearly describe a relativistic if the fibers are twisted into a rope there is no way to cut
spacetime with CTCs.26 G odel’s stated aim in discovering through the rope while remaining orthogonal to each fiber.
this spacetime was to rehabilitate an argument for the (The “twist” of the fibers is analogous to the rotation of
ideality of time from special relativity within the context of worldlines in G odel’s model.) The construction of global
GR. In special relativity, G odel asserts that the ideality of “instants” described above can be carried out if and only if
time follows directly from the relativity of simultaneity. He there is no “twist” (or rotation of the worldlines used to
takes as a necessary condition for the existence of an define the cosmologically privileged frame. emonstrating
objective lapse of time the possibility of decomposing that such rotating models exist by finding an explicit
spacetime into of a sequence of “nows” — namely, that it spacetime model solving Einstein’s field equations was
has the structure R × Σ, where R corresponds to “time” and clearly G odel’s main aim. But the welcome discovery that
Σ are “instants,” three-dimensional collections of in his rotating universe there is a CTC passing through every
simultaneous events. But in special relativity the point further bolstered his argument for the ideality of
decomposition of the spacetime into “instants” is relative to time.29 It is noteworthy that many chronology-violating
an inertial observer rather than absolute; as G odel puts it, spacetimes resemble G odel’s solution in the following
“Each observer has his own set of nows,’ and none of these sense: they contain rotating masses and CTCs wind around
various systems of layers can claim the prerogative of the masses against the orientation of the rotation.30

Volume 11 Issue 4, April 2022

www.ijsr.net
Licensed Under Creative Commons Attribution CC BY
Paper ID: SR22414163839 DOI: 10.21275/SR22414163839 761
 International Journal of Science and Research (IJSR)
ISSN: 2319-7064
SJIF (2022): 7.942
What, then, is G odel’s argument? The crucial problem is Although we do not find a clear answer to this in Go del
how to get from discoveries regarding the nature of time in (1949b), we offer two tentative remarks. First, G odel may
this specific spacetime to a conclusion about the nature of have objected to classifying Minkowski spacetime as
time in general. G odel could avoid this problem if his physically reasonable because it is a vacuum spacetime.
spacetime, or a spacetime with similar features, were a Second, and more importantly, Go del took the prospect of
viable candidate for representing the structure of the discovering a rotating and expanding
observed universe. Then his results would obviously have a
bearing on the nature of time in our universe. G odel The mere compatibility with the laws of nature of worlds in
apparently took this possibility quite seriously, and which there is no dis- tinguished absolute time, and,
subsequently discovered a class of rotating models that therefore, no objective lapse of time can exist, throws some
incorporate the observed expansion of the universe (G odel light on the meaning of time also in those worlds in which
19 2 . In these models, one can construct suitable “instants” an absolute time can be defined. For, if someone asserts that
as long as the rate of rotation is sufficiently low, and recent this absolute time is lapsing, he accepts as a consequence
empirical work places quite low upper limits on the rate of that, whether or not an objective lapse of time exists ...
cosmic rotation.31 depends on the particular way in which matter and its
motion are arranged in the world. This is not a
G odel goes on to argue that even if his model (or models straightforward contradiction; nevertheless, a philosophical
with similar features) fails to represent the actual universe, view leading to such consequences can hardly be considered
its mere existence has general implications (p. 562):32 as satisfactory.
27
More precisely, in Go del’s universe a congruence of espite disagreement among recent commentators regarding
timelike geodesics has non-zero twist and vanishing shear. exactly how to read G odel’s argument, there is consensus
Defining rotation for extended bodies in general relativity that even this modest conclusion is not warranted. The
turns out to be a surprisingly delicate matter (see, especially, dynamical connection between spacetime geometry and the
Malament 2002). distribution of matter encoded in Einstein’s field equations
insures that, in some sense, many claims regarding
28
As John Earman pointed out to us, Go del does not seem to spacetime geometry depend on “how matter and its motion
have noted the stronger result that Go del spacetime does not are arranged.” Nearly any discussion of the FLRW models
admit of any foliation into global time slices. highlights several questions regarding the overall shape of
spacetime — e.g., whether time is bounded or unbounded
29
Malament observed that the existence of CTCs is not and what is the appropriate spatial geometry for “instants”
mentioned in three of the five preparatory manuscripts for — that depend on apparently contingent properties such as
Go del (1949a , and it appears that Go del discovered this the value of the average matter density. What exactly is
feature in the course of studying the solution. In addition, in unsatisfactory about this? What does the mere possibility of
lecture notes on rotating universes (from 1949 Go del spacetimes with different geometries imply regarding
emphasizes that he initially focused on rotation and its geometrical structure in general? Earman (1995, Appendix
connection to the existence of global time slices in to Chapter challenges the implicit modal step in G odel’s
discovering the solution. See Malament (1995) and Stein argument. How can we justify this step on G odel’s behalf,
(1995, 227-229). and elucidate what is unsatisfactory about objective time
lapse in general, without lapsing back into pre- GR
30
Cf. Andr eka et al. (2008). That rotation may be intuitions?
responsible for the formation of CTCs is also suggested by
Bonnor’s (2001 result that stationary axially symmetric Perhaps the argument relies on an implicit modal
solutions of Einstein’s field equations describing two assumption that lapsing, in the sense described above, must
spinning massive bodies under certain circumstances include be an essential property of time. Then (given that (¬P)
a non-vanishing region containing CTCs. ¬(□P , the demonstration that (¬P) (where P is the existence
of an objective lapse of time) via finding the G odel
31
These instants are not surfaces orthogonal to timelike spacetime would be decisive. But what is the basis for this
geodesics, as there is still rotation present, but G odel (1952) claim about the essential nature of time, and how can it be
establishes that surfaces of constant matter density can be defended without relying on pre-relativistic intuitions?
used to define a foliation that satisfies his requirements for Earman (1995) considers this and several replies that might
an objective lapse of time. For recent empirical limits on be offered on G odel’s behalf, only to reject each one. Steve
global rotation based on the cosmic microwave background Savitt (1994 defends a line of thought (cf. ourgrau 1991
radiation, see, for example, Kogut et al. (1997). that is more of a variation on G odelian themes than a
textual exegesis. n Savitt’s line, G odel’s argument rests
32
As Sheldon Smith pointed out to us, if this is taken to be not on essential- ist claims regarding the nature of time but
Go del’s main argument then it is not clear why the mere instead on a claim of local indistinguishability. Suppose that
existence of Minkowski spacetime, regarded as a vacuum it is physically possible for beings like us to exist in a G odel
solution of the field equations, does not suffice. Why did spacetime, and (1) that it is possible for these denizens to
Go del need to go to the effort of discovering the rotating have the “same experience of time” as we do. Assume
model granted that there is no distinguished absolute time in further that (2 the only basis for our claim that objective
Minkowski spacetime? time exists in our universe is the direct experience of time.
Then the existence of the Go del universe is a defeater for

Volume 11 Issue 4, April 2022

www.ijsr.net
Licensed Under Creative Commons Attribution CC BY
Paper ID: SR22414163839 DOI: 10.21275/SR22414163839 762
 International Journal of Science and Research (IJSR)
ISSN: 2319-7064
SJIF (2022): 7.942
our claim to have established objective time lapse on the sharply. Even if we had a generally accepted account of the
basis of our experience, because (for all we know we could laws of nature, the application of “laws” to cosmology is
be in the indistinguishable situation — inhabiting a G odel controversial: how can we distinguish nomic necessities
universe in which there is no such lapse. While this variation from contingencies in this context, granting the uniqueness
does not require a modal step as suspect as the original of the universe? Setting this issue aside, Earman’s challenge
version, neither (1) nor (2) are obviously true — and it is can be reiterated by asking which spacetimes should be
unclear how they can be established without begging the taken as revealing important properties of the laws. Why
question.33 should G odel spacetime, in particular, be taken to reveal
something about the nature of time encoded in the laws of
ne response to the challenge is simply to abandon G odel’s GR? Suppose we expect that only a subset of the spacetimes
modal argument and formulate a different argument to the deemed physically possible within classical GR will also be
same effect. Consider an alternative argument that adopts a physically possible according to the as- yet-undiscovered
divide and conquer strategy rather than relying on a shaky theory of quantum gravity. How would we argue that G odel
modal step (suggested to us by John Earman . ivide the space time should fall within that subset, and that it should
solutions of Einstein’s field equations into (1 those that, like be taken to reveal a fundamental feature of the laws of GR
G odel spacetime, lack a well defined cosmic time, and (2) that will carry over to quantum gravity? The features G odel
solutions that do admit a cosmic time.34 The considerations used to establish the lack of absolute time in his model are
model consistent with observations more seriously than most often taken to support a negative answer to this question that
commentators allow. This suggests that the argument in the does not appear to be ad hoc. Many approaches to quantum
quoted passage is a fall-back position, and that Go del put gravity simply rule out spacetimes with CTCs ab initio
more weight on the claim that he had discovered a viable based on the technical framework adopted.36 As we will
model for the observed universe that lacks an objective lapse discuss below, much of the physics literature on spacetimes
of time. with CTCs seeks clear physical grounds to rule them beyond
the pale; insight into the laws of a future theory of quantum
33
See Belot (2005) and Dorato (2002) for further discussion. gravity would come from showing why the laws do not
allow CTCs. But we agree with Belot that what is more
34
In terms of the causality conditions in §3, a global time unsatisfying regarding G odel’s argument, even on the “law-
function exists for “stably causal” spacetimes — above structural” construal, is that an argument by counter-
show that the spacetimes of type (1 lack an objective lapse example does little to illuminate deeper connections between
of time in G odel’s sense. The spacetimes of type (2) have, the nature of time and the laws of the theory.
by contrast, an embarrassment of riches: there are many
well- defined time functions, and in general no way to single Assessing the implications of G odel’s spacetime clearly
out one as representing the objective lapse of time. The turns on rather delicate issues regarding modality and the
definition of the cosmologically preferred reference frame in laws of nature. Perhaps our failure to articulate a clear
the FLRW models takes advantage of their maximal G odelian argument condition slightly weaker than global
symmetry. Thus we seem to have an argument, without a hyperbolicity.
mysterious modal step, that generic solutions of the field
35
equations lack an objective lapse of time. Belot finds inspiration for this position in several brief
remarks regarding the nature of scientific progress in
A different approach spelled out by Gordon Belot (2005) manuscript precursors to Go del (1949a); however, he does
offers a methodological rather than metaphysical response to not take these considerations to be decisive (see p. 275, fn.
Earman’s challenge. Belot concedes to Earman’s challenge 52).
given a “natural-historical” construal of G odel’s argument,
36
according to which the nature of time can be established Go del’s solution might be ruled out due to the symmetries
based on empirical study of “how matter and its motion are of the solution, as Belot notes: symmetric solutions pose
arranged.” n this reading, time in our universe is technical obstacles to some approaches to quantization, and
characterized by the appropriate spacetime of GR that is the it seems precarious to base assertions regarding features of
best model for observations – and the mere existence of quantum gravity on properties of special, symmetric
alternative spacetimes is irrelevant. But on “law-structural” solutions. But this argument seems too strong, in that it also
construal questions regarding the nature of time focus on the would rule out the FLRW models, which are currently
laws of nature rather than on contingent features of a accepted as the best classical descriptions of the large-scale
particular solution. Belot makes a case that a law-structural structure of the universe.
con- strual of the question is more progressive
methodologically, in that it fosters deeper insights into our Indicates that the properties of such bizarre spacetimes can
theories and aids in the development of new theories.35 If we be safely ignored when we investigate the nature of time in
grant that understanding the laws may require study of GR? Tim Maudlin (2007) advocates a dismissive response
bi arre cases such as G odel’s spacetime alongside more to CTCs, which would otherwise pose a threat to his
realistic solutions then we have the start of a response to metaphysical account of the passage of time: “It is notable in
Earman’s challenge. this case that the equations [Einstein’s field equations] do
not force the existence of CTCs in this sense: for any initial
It is only a start, because this suggested reading remains conditions one can specify, there is a global solution for that
somewhat sketchy without an account of “laws of nature,” initial condition that does not have CTCs.” He anticipates a
which is needed to delineate the two construals more critic’s response that his metaphysical account of passage

Volume 11 Issue 4, April 2022

www.ijsr.net
Licensed Under Creative Commons Attribution CC BY
Paper ID: SR22414163839 DOI: 10.21275/SR22414163839 763
 International Journal of Science and Research (IJSR)
ISSN: 2319-7064
SJIF (2022): 7.942
boldly stipulates that Indeed different observers who are moving relative to each
other will not agree on the same now’! Many science
the nature of time is not compatible with the existence of fiction writers, even some scientists, have seized upon this
CTCs, and replies: “...But is it not equally bold to claim coexistence of the present past and future as proof that they
insight into the nature of time that shows time travel to be are all equally real. However, this view is incorrect since it
possible if we grant that it is not actual and also that the laws does not take into account an important lesson learnt from
of physics, operating from conditions that we take to be another important theory in physics—quantum mechanics.
possible, do not require it” (Maudlin 200 , 190 . These The block universe model is a useful tool for solving
assertions would follow from the proof of the following problems in relativity, but it should not be pushed too far.
form: CTCs do not arise from “physically possible” initial For the danger is that it suggests a predetermined future in
states under dynamical evolution according to Einstein’s which everything that is ever going to happen in our future
equations. Below we will consider a more precise is already fixed
formulation of this “chronology protection conjecture” (in
§6). But at this point we wish to emphasize that this is still a Physics Education
conjecture, and that there are a number of subtleties that
come into play in even formulating a clear statement Where are all the time travellers?
amenable to proof or disproof.37 Perhaps a claim like For now, the best that physicists can come up with to rule
Maudlin’s, suitably disambiguated, will prove to be correct, out the existence of time loops is to ask where all the time
but part of the interest of the question is precisely due to the travellers from the future are. If future generations ever
intriguing technical questions that remain open.38 succeed in building a time machine then surely there will be
many who would wish to visit the twenty-first century and
In any case, Maudlin’s remarks usefully indicate a fruitful we should see these visitors among us today. So here are
way of addressing the importance of solutions with exotic five possible reasons why we should not expect to see any
causal structure. Arguments by counterexample — time travellers.
displaying a solution to Einstein’s field equations with
exotic causal structure — are unsatisfying because it is Time travel to the past is forbidden by some as yet
usually not clear how the solution in question relates to undiscovered laws of physics. Physicists hope to discover
solutions used to model physical systems or how it is related new theories that goes beyond General Relativity and which
to other “nearby” solutions. For example, given a solution explains why time loops are forbidden. We already have a
with CTCs is it an element of open set of solutions that also possible candidate for such a theory, known as M- theory,
have CTCs? Or does the presence of CTCs depend upon a but it is not yet properly understood.
symmetry or some other parameter fixed to a specific value?
Rather than considering a solution in isolation, we are Physics Education
pushed towards questions about the space of solutions to the 1) If there are no naturally occurring time machines—such
field equations. We can ask, for example, what Einstein’s as might be found through a black hole—then the only
field equations imply for the dynamical evolution of some way to travel back in time would be to build one
class of initial data we decide to treat as “physically ourselves. But it turns out that this would only take us as
possible.” ne advantage of framing the question this way is far back as the moment it was switched on (because of
that we can exploit the initial value formulation of GR to the way it would hook up space and time). So we see no
address it, as we will see below. But there is also an time travellers from the future because time machines
important disadvantage: we can only address the existence have not been invented yet.
of chronology-violating space times indirectly, given that 2) Naturally occurring time machines will be found in the
they lack surfaces upon which initial data can be specified. future and people use them to travel back to the
By framing the question this way we would avoid beginning of the twenty-first century, but it turns out that
controversial questions regarding modalities in cosmology, another idea taken seriously by many theoretical
and instead focus on whether it is possible according to GR physicists, that our universe is just one of an infinite
to manipulate matter and energy in a local region such that, number of parallel universes, is correct. In that case, time
contra Maudlin, CTCs are the inevitable result. In more travel to the past slides the traveller into a parallel world.
vivid language, is it possible in principle to build a time There are so many of these parallel realities that our
machine? Formulating this idea precisely is the task of the universe is just not one of the lucky few that have been
next section. visited.

5. The block universe If you are not convinced by the above then I might interest
Before we tackle the trickier problem of time travel into the you in a couple of more mundane possibilities:
past, I should say something about another aspect of Special 1) Expecting to see time travellers among us presupposes
Relativity. Einstein realized several years after publishing that they would want to visit our time. May be for them
his work that Special Relativity implies space and time can there will be much nicer and safer periods to visit.
no longer be treated as separate, but are instead part of a 2) Time travellers from the future are among us but keep a
unified space time in which time makes up the fourth low profile!
dimension. This led him to consider what is known as the
block universe model in which all times— past, present and If I were a betting man I would say that time travel to the
future—coexist as a static whole (figure 1). There is then past will soon be shown to be impossible even in theory.
nothing special about the present moment—our now’. Getting to the future, on the other hand, just requires

Volume 11 Issue 4, April 2022

www.ijsr.net
Licensed Under Creative Commons Attribution CC BY
Paper ID: SR22414163839 DOI: 10.21275/SR22414163839 764
 International Journal of Science and Research (IJSR)
ISSN: 2319-7064
SJIF (2022): 7.942
building a fast enough rocket. Beware, though, that if you subspace of FRW solutions and “the flatness problem”
reach the future, there is (probably) no coming back. of standard cosmology’, Physical Review D50: 6144-
6149.
[13] Coule, .H. (199 , Canonical measure and the
flatness of a FRW universe’, Classical and Quantum
Gravity 12: 455-469.
[14] eutsch, . (1991 , Quantum mechanics near closed
timelike lines’, Physical Review 44: 319 -3217.
[15] Dorato, M. (2002 , n becoming, cosmic time, and
rotating universes’, in C. Callender (ed. , Time,
Reality, and Existence (Cambridge University Press),
253-76.
[16] ouglas, R. (199 Stochastically branching
spacetime topology’, in S. Savitt (ed. , Time’s Arrow
Today (Cambridge University Press), 173-190.
[17] ummett, M. (19 4 , Bringing about the past’,
Philosophical Review 73: 338-359.
[18] yson, L. (2004 , Chronology protection in string
theory’, Journal of High Energy Physics 3: 024.
[19] Earman, J. (1986), A Primer on Determinism (Kluwer
4. Conclusion Academic).
[20] Earman, J. (1995), Bangs, Crunches, Whimpers, and
The conclusion is not that time travel is impossible, but that Shrieks: Singularities and Acausalities in Relativistic
we should treat it the way we treat the possibility of, say, Spacetimes (Oxford University Press).
tossing a fair coin and getting heads one thousand times in a [21] Earman, J. (2008 , Pruning some branches from
row. “branching spacetimes” ’, in . ieks (ed.), The
Ontology of Spacetime II (Elsevier), 187-205.
References [22] Earman, J., Smeenk, C., and Wu thrich, C. (2009 , o
the laws of physics forbid the operation of time
[1] Andr eka, H., N emeti, I., and Wu thrich, C. (2008 , A machines?’, Synthese 1 9: 91-124.
twist in the geometry of rotating black holes: seeking [23] Earman, J., and Wu thrich, C. (2004 , Time
the cause of acausality’, General Relativity and machines’, in E. Zalta (ed.), The Stanford Ency-
Gravitation 40: 1809-1823. clopedia of Philosophy.
[2] Arntzenius, F. (200 , Time travel: double your fun’, http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/time-machine/.
Philosophy Compass 1: 599-616. [24] Einstein, A. (193 , Physik und Realit at’, Journal of
[3] Arnt enius, F., and Maudlin, T. (200 , Time travel the Franklin Institute 221: 313-337. Translated by S.
and modern physics’, in E. Zalta (ed. , The Stanford Bargmann as Physics and reality’, in Einstein, A.,
Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Ideas and Opinions (Crown Publishers), 290-323.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/time-travel-phys/. [25] Ellis, G.F.R. (199 , Contributions of . G odel to
[4] Barcel o, C., and Visser, M. (2002 , Twilight for the Relativity and Cosmology’, in P. H ajek (ed. , G odel
energy conditions?’, International Journal of Modern ’9 : Logical Foundations of Mathematics, Computer
Physics D11: 1553-1560. Science and Physics – urt G odel’s Legacy, (Berlin:
[5] Belot, G. (200 , ust, Time, and Symmetry’, British Springer-Verlag), 34-49.
Journal for the Philosophy of Science 56: 255-91. [26] Epstein, H., Glaser, V., and A. Jaffe (1965),
[6] Black, M. (19 , Why cannot an effect precede its Nonpositivity of the energy density in quanti ed field
cause?’, Analysis 1 : 49-58. theories’, Nuovo Cimento 3 : 101 -1022.
[7] Bombelli, L., Lee, J., Meyer, D., and Sorkin, R.D. [27] Fewster, C.J. (200 , Energy inequalities in quantum
(198 , Space-time and a causal set’, Physical Review field theory’, in J.C. Zambrini (ed. , XIVth
Letters 59: 521-524. International Congress on Mathematical Physics
[8] Bonnor, W. B. (2001 , The interactions between two (World Scientific). Extended version available at
classical spinning particles’, Classical and Quantum http://arxiv.org/abs/math-ph/0501073.
Gravity 18: 1381-1388. [28] Flanagan, E., and Wald, R (199 , oes backreaction
[9] Boyda, E. ., Ganguli, S., Hoˇrava, P., and enforce the averaged null energy con- dition in
Varadarajan, U. (2003 , Holographic protection of semiclassical gravity?’, Physical Review 4: 233-
chronology in universes of the G odel type’, Physical 6283.
Review D67: 106003. [29] Ford, L.H. (19 8 , Quantum coherence effects and the
[10] Breckenridge, J.C., Myers, R.C., Peet, A.W., and Vafa, second law of thermodynamics’, Pro- ceedings of the
C. (199 , -branes and spinning black holes’, Royal Society London A364: 227-236.
Physics Letters B391: 93-98. [30] Ford, L.H. (200 , Spacetime in semiclassical
[11] Callender, C., and Weingard, R. (2000 , Topology gravity’, in A. Ashtekar (ed. , 100 ears of Relativity:
change and the unity of space’, Studies in History and Space-time Structure: Einstein and Beyond, (World
Philosophy of Modern Physics 31: 227-246. Scientific), 293-310.
[12] Cho, H.T., and antowski, R. (1994 , Measure on a [31] Friedman, J.L. (2004 , The Cauchy problem on

Volume 11 Issue 4, April 2022

www.ijsr.net
Licensed Under Creative Commons Attribution CC BY
Paper ID: SR22414163839 DOI: 10.21275/SR22414163839 765
 International Journal of Science and Research (IJSR)
ISSN: 2319-7064
SJIF (2022): 7.942
spacetimes that are not globally hyperbolic’, in P.T. [49] Herdeiro, C.A., (2000 , Special properties of five
Chrusciel and H. Friedrich (eds.), The Einstein dimensional BPS rotating black holes’ Nu- clear
Equations and the Large Scale Behavior of Physics B582: 363-392.
Gravitational Fields: 50 Years of the Cauchy Problem [50] Horwich, P. (1987), Asymmetries in Time: Problems
in General Relativity (Birkh auser), 331-346. in the Philosophy of Science, (MIT Press).
[32] Friedman, J.L., and Higuchi, A. (200 , Topological [51] Kay, B. S., Radzikowski, M. J., and Wald, R.M.
censorship and chronology protection’, Annalen der (199 , Quantum field theory on spacetimes with
Physik 15: 109-128. compactly generated Cauchy hori ons’,
[33] Friedman, J.L., Morris, M.S., Novikov, I.D., Communications in Mathematical Physics 183: 533-
Echeverria, F., Klinkhammer, G., Thorne, K.S., and 556.
Yurtsever, U. (1990 , Cauchy problem in spacetimes [52] Kim, S. W. and Thorne, . S. (1991 , o vacuum
with closed timelike curves’, Physical Review 42: fluctuations prevent the creation of closed timelike
1915-1930. curves?’, Physical Review 43: 3929-3947.
[34] Friedman, J.L., Schleich, K., and Witt, D.M. (1993), [53] Kogut, A., Hinshaw, G., and Banday, A.J. (1997),
Topological censorship’, Physical Review Letters 1: Limits to global rotation and shear from the C BE
1486-1489. DMR four-year sky maps’, Physical Review D55:
[35] Galloway, G.J. (199 , n the topology of the domain 1901-1905.
of outer communication’, Classical and Quantum [54] rasnikov, S. (2002 , No time machines in classical
Gravity 12: L99-L101. general relativity’, Classical and Quantum Gravity 19:
[36] Gannon, . (19 , Singularities in nonsimply 4109-4129.
connected space-times’, Journal of Mathemat- ical [55] Lewis, . (19 , The paradoxes of time travel’,
Physics 16: 2364-2367. American Philosophical Quarterly 13: 145- 152.
[37] Gauntlett, J.P., Gutowski, J.B., Hull, C.M., Pakis, S., Reprinted in his Philosophical Papers, Volume II
and Reall, H.S. (2003 , All supersym- metric (Oxford University Press), 67-80.
solutions of minimal supergravity in five dimensions’, [56] Malament, . (19 , The class of continuous
Classical and Quantum Gravity 20: 4587-4634. timelike curves determines the topology of spacetime’,
[38] Geroch, R. (19 , Topology in general relativity’, Journal of Mathematical Physics 18: 1399-1404.
Journal of Mathematical Physics 8: 782- 786. [57] Malament, . (198 a , Minimal acceleration
[39] Geroch, R. (19 , Prediction in general relativity’, in requirements for “time travel” in G odel space- time’,
J. Earman, C. Glymour, and J. Stachel (eds.), Journal of Mathematical Physics 26: 774-777.
Foundation of Spacetime Theories, Minnesota Studies [58] Malament, . (198 b , “Time travel” in the G odel
in the Philosophy of Sicence VIII (University of universe’, in P. . Asquith and P. itcher (eds. , PSA
Minnesota Press), 81-93. 1984, Vol. 2 (Philosophy of Science Association), 91-
[40] Geroch, R., and Horowitz, G. (19 9 , Global structure 100.
of spacetimes’, in S.W. Hawking and W. Israel (eds. , [59] Malament, . (199 , Introductory note to 1949b’, in
General Relativity: An Einstein Centenary Survey S. Feferman et al. (eds. , urt G odel: Collected
(Cambridge University Press), 212- 293. Works, Volume III (Oxford University Press), 261-
[41] Gibbons, G.W., and Herdeiro, C.A.R. (1999), 269.
Supersymmetric rotating black holes and causal- ity [60] Malament, . (2002 , A no-go theorem about rotation
violation’, Classical and Quantum Gravity 1 : 3 19- in relativity theory’, in . Malament, (ed.), Reading
3652. Natural Philosophy (Essays Dedicated to Howard Stein
[42] G odel, . (1949a , An example of a new type of on His 70th Birthday), (Open Court Press), 267-293.
cosmological solutions of Einstein’s field equations of [61] Manchak, J.B. (2009a , Is spacetime hole-free?’,
gravitation’, Review of Modern Physics 21: 44 -450. General Relativity and Gravitation 41: 1639- 1643.
[43] G odel, . (1949b , A remark about the relationship [62] Manchak, J.B. (2009b , n the existence of “time
between relativity theory and idealistic philosophy’, in machines” in general relativity’, Philosophy of Science
P.A. Schilpp (ed.), Albert Einstein: Philosopher- 76: in press.
Scientist (Open Court), 557- 562. [63] Mattingly, J. (2001 , Singularities and scalar fields:
[44] G odel, . (19 2 , Rotating universes in general Matter fields and general relativity’, Philosophy of
relativity theory’, in L.M. Graves et al. (eds. , Science 68: S395-S406.
Proceeding of the International Congress of [64] Maudlin, T. (2007), The Metaphysics Within Physics
Mathematicians, (American Mathematical Soci- ety), (Oxford University Press).
175-181. [65] Meiland, J.W. (19 4 , A two-dimensional passage
[45] Hawking, S.W. (1992 , Chronology protection model of time for time travel’, Philosophical Studies
conjecture’, Physical Review D46: 603-611. 26: 153-173.
[46] Hawking, S.W., and Ellis, G.F.R., (1973), The Large [66] Mellor, D.H. (1981), Real Time (Cambridge
Scale Structure of Space-time (Cambridge University University Press).
Press). [67] Moncrief, V. and Isenberg, J. (1983 , Symmetries of
[47] Hawking, S.W., and Page, .N. (1988 , How cosmological Cauchy hori ons’, Commu- nications in
probable is inflation?’, Nuclear Physics B298: 89- Mathematical Physics 89: 387-413.
809. [68] Monton, B. (2009 , Time travel without causal loops’,
[48] Hawking, S.W., and Penrose, R., (1996), The Nature Philosophical Quarterly 59: 54-67.
of Space and Time, (Princeton University Press). [69] Morris, M.S., and Thorne, K.S. (1988 , Wormholes in

Volume 11 Issue 4, April 2022

www.ijsr.net
Licensed Under Creative Commons Attribution CC BY
Paper ID: SR22414163839 DOI: 10.21275/SR22414163839 766
 International Journal of Science and Research (IJSR)
ISSN: 2319-7064
SJIF (2022): 7.942
spacetime and their use for interstellar travel: A tool Theoretical Physics and Cosmology: Celebrating
for teaching general relativity’, American Journal of Stephen Hawking’s 0th Birthday (Cambridge
Physics 56: 395-412. University Press), 161-176.
[70] Morris, M.S., Thorne, K.S. and Yurtsever, U. (1988), [92] Wald, R.M. (1984), General Relativity (The University
Wormholes, time machines, and the weak energy of Chicago Press).
condition’, Physical Review Letters 1: 144 -1449. 43 [93] Wald, R.M. (1998 , Gravitational collapse and cosmic
[71] ri, A. (200 , Formation of closed timelike curves in censorship’, in B.R. Iyer and B. Bhawal (eds.), Black
a composite vacuum/dust asymptotically flat Holes, Gravitational Radiation and the Universe:
spacetime’, Physical Review : 044002. Essays in Honor of C. V. Vishveshwara (Kluwer
[72] Penrose, R. (19 9 , Gravitational collapse: the role of Academic), 69-85.
general relativity’, Rivista del Nuovo Cimento 1: 2 2- [94] Weyl, H. (1921), Space-Time-Matter, translated by S.
276 (Numero speciale). Brose (Methuen).
[73] Penrose, R. (19 9 , Singularities and time- [95] Witt, .M. (198 , Vacuum space-times that admit no
asymmetry’, in S.W. Hawking and W. Isreal (eds. , maximal slice’, Physical Review Letters : 138 -
General Relativity: An Einstein Centenary Survey, 1389.
581-638. [96] Wu thrich, C. (2006), Approaching the Planck Scale
[74] Polchinski, J. (1998), String Theory (Cambridge From a Generally Relativis- tic Point of View: A
University Press). Philosophical Appraisal of Loop Quantum Gravity,
[75] Polit er, H. . (1992 , Simple quantum systems in PhD thesis, University of Pittsburgh.
spacetimes with closed timelike curves’, Physical [97] http://philosophy.ucsd.edu/faculty/wuthrich/pub/
Review D46: 4470-4476. WuthrichChristianPh 200 Final.pdf [9 ] Wu thrich,
[76] Price, H. (1984 , The philosophy and physics of C. (2007), Zeitreisen und
affecting the past’, Synthese 1 : 299-323. [98] Zeitmaschinen, in T. Mu ller (ed.), Philosophie der
[77] Rendall, A. (2008), Partial Differential Equations in Zeit: Neue analytische Anstze (Vittorio Klostermann),
General Relativity, (Oxford University Press). 191-219.
[78] Rovelli, C. (2004), Quantum Gravity (Cambridge [99] ourgrau, P. (1991 , The isappearance of Time: urt
University Press). G odel and the Idealistic Tradition in Philosophy
[79] Savitt, S. (1994 , The replacement of time’, (Cambridge University Press).
Australasian Journal of Philosophy 72: 463-474.
[80] Smith, N.J.J. (199 , Bananas enough for time
travel?’, British Journal for the Philosophy of Science
48: 363-389.
[81] Stein, H. (19 0 , n the paradoxical time- structures
of G odel’, Philosophy of Science 37: 589- 601.
[82] Stein, H. (199 , Introductory note to 194 9’, in S.
Feferman et al. (eds. , urt G odel: Collected Works,
Volume III (Oxford University Press), 202- 229.
[83] Thiemann, T. (2007), Modern Canonical Quantum
General Relativity (Cambridge University Press).
[84] Thorne, K.S. (1994), Black Holes and Time Warps:
Einstein’s utrageous Legacy (W.W. Nor- ton and
Company).
[85] Thorne, .S. (2002 , Space-time warps and the
quantum world: Speculations about the future’ in S.W.
Hawking et al. (eds.), The Future of Spacetime (W.W.
Norton), 109-152.
[86] Tipler, F.J. (19 4 , Rotating cylinders and the
possibility of global causality violation’, Phys- ical
Review D9: 2203-2206.
[87] Tipler, F. J. (19 , Causality violation in
asymptotically flat space-times’, Physical Review
Letters 37: 879-882.
[88] Tipler, F. J. (1977), Singularities and causality
violation’, Annals of Physics 108: 1-36.
[89] van Stockum, W.J. (193 , The gravitational field of a
distribution of particles rotating about an axis of
symmetry’, Proceedings of the Royal Society of
Edinburgh 57: 135-154.
[90] Visser, M. (1996), Lorentzian Wormholes: from
Einstein to Hawking (American Institute of Physics).
[91] Visser, M. (2003 , The quantum physics of
chronology protection’, in G.W. Gibbons, E.P.S.
Shellard, and S.J. Rankin (eds.), The Future of

Volume 11 Issue 4, April 2022

www.ijsr.net
Licensed Under Creative Commons Attribution CC BY
Paper ID: SR22414163839 DOI: 10.21275/SR22414163839 767