|

|

|
Sagan on Time Travel
Carl Sagan, the astronomer, Pulitzer Prize-winning author,
and legendary popularizer of science, gave this interview
during the making of "Time Travel." True to form, he
discusses arcane aspects of the field—from how you
define time to what it might look like inside a
wormhole—with flair and a refreshing dash of humor.
Sagan was David Duncan Professor of Astronomy and Space
Sciences and director of the Laboratory for Planetary
Studies at Cornell University when he died in 1996.
NOVA: Let's start with the crux of the matter. What for
you is time?
Sagan: Ever since St. Augustine, people have wrestled
with this, and there are all sorts of things it isn't. It
isn't a flow of something, because what does it flow past? We
use time to measure flow. How could we use time to measure
time? We are stuck in it, each of us time travels into the
future, one year, every year. None of us to any significant
precision does otherwise. If we could travel close to the
speed of light, then we could travel further into the future
in a given amount of time. It is one of those concepts that is
profoundly resistant to a simple definition.
NOVA: Do you think that backwards time travel will ever
be possible?
Sagan: Such questions are purely a matter of evidence,
and if the evidence is inconsistent or insufficient, then we
withhold judgment until there is better evidence. Right now
we're in one of those classic, wonderfully evocative moments
in science when we don't know, when there are those on both
sides of the debate, and when what is at stake is very
mystifying and very profound.
If we could travel into the past, it's mind-boggling what
would be possible. For one thing, history would become an
experimental science, which it certainly isn't today. The
possible insights into our own past and nature and origins
would be dazzling. For another, we would be facing the deep
paradoxes of interfering with the scheme of causality that has
led to our own time and ourselves. I have no idea whether it's
possible, but it's certainly worth exploring.
NOVA: Would you like it to be possible?
Sagan: I have mixed feelings. The explorer and
experimentalist in me would very much like it to be possible.
But the idea that going into the past could wipe me out so
that I would have never lived is somewhat disquieting.
NOVA: On that note, can you describe the "grandfather
paradox?"
Sagan: The grandfather paradox is a very simple,
science-fiction-based apparent inconsistency at the very heart
of the idea of time travel into the past. It's very simply
that you travel into the past and murder your own grandfather
before he sires your mother or your father, and where does
that then leave you? Do you instantly pop out of existence
because you were never made? Or are you in a new causality
scheme in which, since you are there you are there, and the
events in the future leading to your adult life are now very
different? The heart of the paradox is the apparent existence
of you, the murderer of your own grandfather, when the very
act of you murdering your own grandfather eliminates the
possibility of you ever coming into existence.
Among the claimed solutions are that you can't murder your
grandfather. You shoot him, but at the critical moment he
bends over to tie his shoelace, or the gun jams, or somehow
nature contrives to prevent the act that interrupts the
causality scheme leading to your own existence.
NOVA: Do you find it easy to believe the world might
work that way—that is, self-consistently—or do you
think it's more likely that that there are parallel
universes?
Sagan: It's still somewhat of a heretical ideal to
suggest that every interference with an event in the past
leads to a fork, a branch in causality. You have two equally
valid universes: one, the one that we all know and love, and
the other, which is brought about by the act of time travel. I
know the idea of the universe having to work out a
self-consistent causality is appealing to a great many
physicists, but I don't find the argument for it so
compelling. I think inconsistencies might very well be
consistent with the universe.
NOVA: As a physicist, what do you make of Stephen
Hawking's chronological protection conjecture [which holds
that the laws of physics disallow time machines]?
Sagan: There have been some toy experiments in which,
at just the moment that the time machine is actuated, the
universe conspires to blow it up, which has led Hawking and
others to conclude that nature will contrive it so that time
travel never in fact occurs. But no one actually knows that
this is the case, and it cannot be known until we have a full
theory of quantum gravity, which we do not seem to be on the
verge of yet.
One of Hawking's arguments in the conjecture is that we are
not awash in thousands of time travelers from the future, and
therefore time travel is impossible. This argument I find very
dubious, and it reminds me very much of the argument that
there cannot be intelligences elsewhere in space, because
otherwise the Earth would be awash in aliens. I can think half
a dozen ways in which we could not be awash in time travelers,
and still time travel is possible.
NOVA: Such as?
Sagan: First of all, it might be that you can build a
time machine to go into the future, but not into the past, and
we don't know about it because we haven't yet invented that
time machine. Secondly, it might be that time travel into the
past is possible, but they haven't gotten to our time yet,
they're very far in the future and the further back in time
you go, the more expensive it is. Thirdly, maybe backward time
travel is possible, but only up to the moment that time travel
is invented. We haven't invented it yet, so they can't come to
us. They can come to as far back as whatever it would be, say
A.D. 2300, but not further back in time.
Then there's the possibility that they're here alright, but we
don't see them. They have perfect invisibility cloaks or
something. If they have such highly developed technology, then
why not? Then there's the possibility that they're here and we
do see them, but we call them something else—UFOs or
ghosts or hobgoblins or fairies or something like that.
Finally, there's the possibility that time travel is perfectly
possible, but it requires a great advance in our technology,
and human civilization will destroy itself before time
travelers invent it.
I'm sure there are other possibilities as well, but if you
just think of that range of possibilities, I don't think the
fact that we're not obviously being visited by time travelers
shows that time travel is impossible.
NOVA: How is the speed of light connected to time
travel?
Sagan: A profound consequence of Einstein's special
theory of relativity is that no material object can travel as
fast as light. It is forbidden. There is a commandment: Thou
shalt not travel at the speed of light, and there's nothing we
can do to travel that fast.
The reason this is connected with time travel is because
another consequence of special relativity is that time, as
measured by the speeding space traveler, slows down compared
to time as measured by a friend left home on Earth. This is
sometimes described as the "twin paradox": two identical
twins, one of whom goes off on a voyage close to the speed of
light, and the other one stays home. When the space-traveling
twin returns home, he or she has aged only a little, while the
twin who has remained at home has aged at the regular pace. So
we have two identical twins who may be decades apart in age.
Or maybe the traveling twin returns in the far future, if you
go close enough to the speed of light, and everybody he knows,
everybody he ever heard of has died, and it's a very different
civilization.
It's an intriguing idea, and it underscores the fact that time
travel into the indefinite future is consistent with the laws
of nature. It's only travel backwards in time that is the
source of the debate and the tingling sensations that
physicists and science-fiction readers delight in.
NOVA: In your novel Contact, your main character
Eleanor Arroway travels through a wormhole. Can you describe a
wormhole?
Sagan: Let's imagine that we live in a two-dimensional
space. We wish to go from spot A to spot B. But A and B are so
far apart that at the speed of light it would take much longer
than a generational time or two to get there as measured back
on world A. Instead, you have a kind of tunnel that goes
through an otherwise inaccessible third dimension and connects
A and B. You can go much faster through the tunnel, and so you
get from A to B without covering the intervening space, which
is somewhat mind-boggling but consistent with the laws of
nature. And [the theoretical physicist] Kip Thorne found that
if we imagine an indefinitely advanced technical civilization,
such a wormhole is consistent with the laws of physics.
It's very different from saying that we ourselves could
construct such a wormhole. One of the basic ideas of how to do
it is that there are fantastically minute wormholes that are
forming and decaying all the time at the quantum level, and
the idea is to grab one of those and keep it permanently open.
Our high-energy particle accelerators don't have enough energy
to even detect the phenomenon at that scale, much less do
anything like holding a wormhole open. But it did seem in
principle possible, so I reconfigured the book so that Eleanor
Arroway successfully makes it through the center of the galaxy
via a wormhole.
NOVA: What do you think it would be like to travel
through a wormhole?
Sagan: Nobody really knows, but what Thorne has taught
me is that say, for example, you were going through a wormhole
from point A to point B. Suppose point B was in orbit around
some bright star. The moment you were in the wormhole, near
your point of origin A, you would see that star. And it would
be very bright; it wouldn't be a tiny point in the distance.
On the other hand, if you look sideways, you would not see out
of the wormhole, you would be in that fourth physical
dimension. What the walls of the wormhole would be is deeply
mysterious. And the possibility was also raised that if you
looked backwards in the wormhole you would see the very place
on world A that you had left. And that would be true even as
you emerged out of the wormhole near the star B. You would see
in space a kind of black sphere, in which would be an image of
the place you had left on Earth, just floating in the
blackness of space. Very Alice in Wonderland.
NOVA: Your inquiries about space travel for
Contact sparked a whole new direction in research on
time travel. How does that make you feel?
Sagan: I find it marvellous, I mean literally
marvellous, full of marvel, that this innocent inquiry in the
context of writing a science-fiction novel has sparked a whole
field of physics and dozens of scientific papers by some of
the best physicists in the world. I'm so pleased to have
played this catalytic role not just in fast spaceflight but in
the idea of time travel.
NOVA: How do you feel being responsible for bringing
time travel perhaps a step closer?
Sagan: I don't know that I've brought time travel a
step closer. If anyone has it's Kip Thorne. But maybe the
joint effort of all those involved in this debate has at least
increased the respectability of serious consideration of the
possibility of time travel. As a youngster who was fascinated
by the possibility of time travel in the science-fiction
novels of H.G. Wells, Robert Heinlein, and others, to be in
any way involved in the possible actualization of time
travel—well, it just brings goose bumps. Of course we're
not really at that stage; we don't know that time travel is
even possible, and if it is, we certainly haven't developed
the time machine. But it's a stunning fact that we have now
reached a stage in our understanding of nature where this is
even a bare possibility.
Sagan on Time Travel
|
Traveling Through Time
Timespeak |
Think Like Einstein |
Resources
Teacher's Guide
|
Transcript
|
Site Map
Editor's Picks
|
Previous Sites
|
Join Us/E-mail
|
TV/Web Schedule
About NOVA |
Teachers |
Site Map |
Shop |
Jobs |
Search |
To print
PBS Online |
NOVA Online |
WGBH
©
| Updated November 2000
|
|
|