Time Waves and a Sound of Thunder

The movie of Ray Bradbury’s “The Sound of Thunder” uses time waves or ripples to perpetuate changes from the past into the present. But is it accurate? Should we wave goodbye to them?

People often ask whether we’re subject to changes in time that someone else has initiated but where we’re none the wiser. The idea of time ripples which propagate changes from the past into the future is one attempt which attempts to dispel this idea because when those ripples reach the present we notice the change.

I recently watched “The Sound of Thunder” – the movie version of Ray Bradbury’s short story of the same name. The long and short of it is that someone steps on and kills a butterfly in prehistoric times and comes back to the present to find that it’s been dramatically altered.

Sound of Thunder movie (2005)

An idea is presented in the movie where a change in the past causes ripples in time into the future – these are readjustments to climate, nature, evolution etc. and which of course cause a few problems for our beloved main characters.

Time behaving as a fluid, whether it be as the famous River of Time, or something more like a vast lake isn’t a new idea, but I thought that the idea of ramifications extending from past to present not as an instantaneous change but as a time varying progression to be an interesting one!

In the movie there isn’t just one time ripple, but a series of ripples. Each ripple lasts a few moments, and where in true Hollywood style we see a wall of blurry skyline hurtling (through space) towards the camera and bringing with it various changes. There’s a pause, and then the next ripple hits.

Of course in the movie, the final ripple is the one which will knock out the humans and is the clinch point of the movie – the nail-biter and the source of tension.

An interesting idea…but there’s a flaw.

Wave dispersion

Here’s the thing about the ripples. The first is fairly obvious and I’ve already mentioned it: the ripples are seen to move over space and not time. We see the wave moving (i.e. it has a speed – distance divided by time) so it’s moving within time, and not across it. But I’ll give over to this and put it down to Hollywood dumbing down and dramatics.

For me the main issue is the wave dispersion principle. Stand on the shore of a river and listen to the waves lapping the shore after a boat passes. At first the waves are large and slow, and as time goes on the waves become smaller, but quicker. The wave dispersion principle: that waves with smaller wavelengths and wave heights travel slower than larger waves.

Exactly the opposite happens with the time waves in this movie which get bigger and further apart…

Water waves and time waves

Is it fair to assume a direct similarity between time waves and water waves?

Time behaving as a river or some other mass collection of some sort of fluid is only a model or souped up ( 😉 ) analogy. It may seem to hold true in some areas more than in others (as is the case with many models) – but it does afford us the chance to explore some “what if” scenarios.

Peaks and troughs

Waves are most noticeable by their peaks – a fact given over even to the measurement of waves – the “significant wave height” for example, which is defined as the mean wave height of the highest third of the waves. We use the highest third because the human eye is predisposed to preferentially see these – just as it’s easier to see the peak of a wave than its trough. A fact attested to by the fact that we see the peaks of the time waves in the movie, and nothing else.

(Actually, there are energetic arguments too; that small changes in increasing wave height give large amount of additional energy – but the above point still holds!)

Time waves

The time wave, if really a wave, would consist of a peak (as seen in the movie) and a trough (which isn’t seen in the movie).

This got me thinking about another possible scenarios which could have played through – that readjustment might also happen in the troughs.

What would this mean?

Different parts of a wave move its medium in different directions. The peak moves forwards (e.g. a surfer on or just in front of the peak is pushed forwards by the water underneath his board). With the trough the reverse is true – there is movement backwards.

So in other words, if a temporal readjustment were to happen in the troughs, we’d regress into…actually, I don’t know what! (And given wave asymmetry, it’s also likely that we’d spend a longer period of time in readjustment in the trough…especially given the Hollywood induced longer wavelength!)

Wave orbital motion

Additionally, if we look more closely at the motion under a wave, fluid dynamics dictates that there is no net movement (aside from a little “Stoke’s Drift”); the forward motion at the peak is countered by the reverse motion in the trough. Actually there’s also equal and opposing vertical motion on the leading and trailing sides of the wave too.

time wave orbital motion
Image credit: http://wavestides.weebly.com/wave-motion.html

This makes sense – throw a pebble into a pond and the waves emanate from the epicenter – but all the water doesn’t move away from the location where the pebble landed; there’s no gaping hole left in the middle of the pond. (Although if you drop a meteorite in the middle of the Jurassic Period wiping out the dinosaurs, then certainly a crater is left…! 😉 )

time ripple
The idea of time ripples probably doesn’t work…

So no net motion means no net change – no readjustment. Time ripples used as a chronic temporal readjustment can’t work…


The idea then, that we’re made aware of changes in the past through some sort of chronic time ripple doesn’t seem to hold much weight. Or is there just nothing? No waves, ‘just’ the creation of a new time line? Or to extend the analogy, the creation of a new pond?

Who’s to know? This is always been the argument.

The time ripple idea often seems to assume a rapid change, but by the arguments given above it is also likely that we might be in a prolonged readjustment period. One which happens so slowly that it’s imperceptible. Maybe it happens so slowly that it actually happens in real time – in other words – we create our own future.

Now how awesome is that!


If you enjoyed this post, you might like to visit, like or circle time2timetravel on Facebook and Google+

Sign up here to receive future posts sent direct to your email!

Review: d4 by Sherrie Cronin

d4 by Sherrie Cronin is an action novel for intellectuals! It has a gripping plot which incorporates a fully thought out phenomenon of seeing into the future, as well as addressing the philosophical question of what to do with that knowledge.

Sherrie Cronin’s “46.Ascending” series consists of 6 novels each of which focusses on a member of the Zeitman family who have a special power. In d4 the main character is Ariel who is able to see the future.

Book cover for d4 by Sherrie Cronin

Admittedly d4 is not strictly time travel, but there’s a knowledge of the future which I suppose in another novel a time traveller might learn. So call it pseudo time travel. Besides I recently read, loved and reviewed z2 where Alex was able to warp time and manipulate the speed of its passage and I wanted to read more from Sherrie!

Brief synopsis

Ariel works for an investment company which specialises in “high frequency trading” – buying and selling stocks and shares and things based on short term fluctuations in the market. She has 3 clients, one of whom is intent on amassing the world’s wealth with help from his own ability to see the short term future. When he finds out that Ariel has a similar ability to see the future he tries to coerce her into assisting him.

Against this backdrop is the knowledge of a long term future where humankind is threatened. How Ariel deals with her clients, and the relationships she makes with them, seemingly affect the likelihood and the outcome of the future of mankind.

Wrting style

Sherrie really hits the spot when it comes to beautiful writing! Characters have depth and background and these attributes come into play in their conversation with each other as well as how they react to certain given situations. Like in z2 they’re introduced early on and the connections between them become evident fairly quickly.

There is also realism in that the line between the good and the bad guys is either fuzzy, or moves completely. I suppose that in the end, motivations and feelings of people define whether they are good or bad.

The main plot line within d4 is clearly defined, and the pace is steady. A lot happens – not necessarily through direct action like in z2 but through movement of knowledge from one character to another. Consequences of holding that information are key in what happens in d4! Let’s call this an intellectual property -action novel!

d4 is set in Ireland, Greenland and Iceland. A map is included at the front of the novel so that we know where some of the towns in these countries are – which highlights the following point: the assumption is that most readers are probably not familiar with these locations, possibly because not many other novels are set here. Sherrie gives us a breath of fresh (and probably very cold) air!

I should add that thankfully accents are described and not spelled out phonetically (which is a pet peeve of mine). Actually there’s a special case with one word, but this is added for a slightly humourous angle!

A special note needs to be made about tension in the novel. You’d think that with several of the characters having knowledge of the future there would be little space for intrigue and mystery. I don’t know how she does it (and I hope it’s not my stupidity!) but Sherrie masterfully maintains suspense throughout the novel. Ariel knows what’s going to happen next – but we don’t!

Several small details help to ‘pad out’ d4 with more elements of realism. For example, Ariel’s ongoing confusion between Fergus and Ronan shows her vulnerability as well as providing a touch of humour.

“d4” – What’s in a name?

Talking of names…

I’m giving this a little section of its own partly in response to an entertaining – but nonsensical – review I read on Goodreads which is so inaccurate it’s almost comical. The reviewer starts off with an insane comment opinion different to my own that the name “d4” comes up out of nowhere.

Interested in knowing what’s behind the name? Me too! Personally, I think the name stands out. Most time travel novels have “time” in the title. It’s getting old and stale. Names like “d4”, “z2” and “46.Ascending” are different and call attention!

The Goodreads reviewer had trouble in understanding where the name “d4” came from. “d4” is the name of Baldur’s organisation. Not difficult to pick up (from page 38 or thereabouts), and hardly scientific stuff – although if you want that, it comes on p 138 where “d4” is explained in glorious mathematical detail (although I must admit that I find it unlikely that Ariel would have followed the path she took to discover this).

Personally, I love the naming of the book (and of z2 which equally has a brilliant basis)!

Links with other novels

Like z2, d4 is a novel which is loosely connected with others in the 46.Ascending series – but only loosely; it can be read independently from the others and still make sense.

Since Ariel is a member of the Zeitman family, each of whom are the main characters in the other novels (x0, y1, z2 and c3), there are clearly come cross references. Having read z2 I was aware of the links back to that novel, but there were also others which I must admit whetted my appetite. For example, Ariels’ brother Zane is able to morph into other shapes, and there’s a comment that one of his friends, Toby, owes him a debt which can’t be repaid.

I’m guessing that’s covered in y1 and I’d love to read it, though I should specifically point out here that the cross-references don’t come over as a cheesy way of begging the reader to rush out and purchase all of the other novels in the series. In fact, you’d probably hardly notice that they’re there at all if you didn’t know about the other novels in the 46.Ascending series.

Thanks for the premory

Now for the real juice of the novel!

Ariel ‘remembers’ the future, or to use her word – she has “premories” of the future. I think it’s a really nice touch to give Ariel’s capability a word, and I’m embarrassed to admit like much like a test rat in some psychological experiment of some ilk, I found that having a word to call it kind of made her experience more understandable to me!

Much like memories, Ariel’s ideas about the future are fuzzy. They can consist of sounds, smells and meanings – and she is also able to assign a level of likelihood of occurrence. Her premories arise mostly through physical contact with an object or a person.

It turns out that Ariel is not the only one in the novel with this ability. But where Ariel can see a few weeks ahead, other characters can see only a few seconds into the future; others a few hundred years.

Mikkel describes Ariel’s range into the future as being in the Goldilocks zone – not too close and not too far. Indeed, Ariel and other characters were described as being like a telescope, binoculars, magnifying glass or a microscope depending on the extent of their view. Very nice! 🙂

Another really nice explanation of the range of views was given by Siarnaq who likened the phenomenon to being tuned in to different frequencies. I couldn’t help wondering if there was a connection between this and Ariel’s name! 😉

Just as touch can trigger a premory, it can also trigger a contagion of sorts between those with the ability; each gains a view of what the other can see. When Ariel has prolonged physical contact with another who can see short term, she suffers after-shocks – little flickers of the short term future.

Again, this shows the command that Sherrie wields in her novel by adding in these extra details to make a fully comprehensive phenomenon.

On a personal note, I didn’t like the terms “psychic” or “clairvoyant” to describe Ariel’s ability to see into the future. For me, these words conjure up images of dodgy spiritualism, gypsy caravans, josticks and cheap gaudy bling. What Ariel (and the others) have is much more tangible.

Actually on that note, d4 is a good example of why you shouldn’t judge a book by its cover. The book cover shows a girl (presumably Ariel) doing a pose (presumably yoga, because Ariel practises yoga) by a lake. Maybe you can make out a “D” form in the sky, and the legs make a “4”, but it’s a bit ‘soft’ for the solid novel content. It looks like I’m reading a book about relaxing techniques whereas reading d4 is an exciting read!

A philosophical approach to the future

Underneath the main thrust of the story line lies a gentle question – what do we do with knowledge of the future? This is expressed most clearly towards the end of the novel, but prior to that there are several conversations and inner thoughts where this is brought to the fore.

One aspect I enjoyed was a hint of multiple time lines, though perhaps this would more accurately be described as several branches of possible futures. Knowing the future means that an action can be taken to avoid a particular outcome sometimes. In d4 the point is that the final long term outcome may be the same no matter what actions are taken, but in the short term things can be made better for that particular time line.

This is a philosophical point in itself – if we know the future can we take actions to avoid it?

One often meets his destiny on the road he takes to avoid it.
Quote from Kung Fu Panda movie. Image credit: www.buzzle.com


Like in z2, d4 closes with a section describing the outcome of several actions of several characters, and extrapolating this into the future. The section stands out from others as the writing style differs slightly. It closes and wraps up; it’s to the point – but not rushed.

At first I was a little disappointed with the end which was a bit of an anticlimax given the suspense which had so far been building up. It seemed a bit of an easy way out, but reading further I think this was the only realistic conclusion to that particular thread. And here lies the power of the ending…it keeps going!

I love how the plot keeps moving onwards into the future and doesn’t stop where I think most other novels would have (OK –z2 didn’t either! 😉 )

Rating * * * * *

Another 5 stars for another brilliant novel in the 46.Ascending series by Sherrie Cronin!

d4 possesses the wonderful writing style that Sherrie has already shown in z2. It has a steady and gripping plot which incorporates a fully thought out phenomenon of seeing into the future, as well as addressing the philosophical question of what to do with that knowledge.

You can read more about d4 on Sherrie’s d4 blog, and about the 46.Ascending series here.

Read my interview with Sherrie over on Time Travel Nexus where she reveals some amazing insights and behind the scenes information!


If you enjoyed this post, you might like to visit, like or circle time2timetravel on Facebook and Google+

If you enjoyed this post, why not sign up to receive future posts sent direct to your email!

Disclaimer: Sherrie kindly sent me a free copy of “d4” to read in exchange for honest review. This is it!

Star ratings:

| 5* Excellent! | 4* Good | 3* OK | 2* Not good | 1* Crud |

Should you change the past?

“What would you change in your past” is a common question, but often not much thought is given over to the morals of changing the past. This article explores whether we should change our past at all.

“A change in my past?”

I recently posted this link on the time2timetravel Facebook page. In that video the question is asked: What would you change in your past?

It’s an interesting question. Though I think I probably have a different angle on it – Do I want to change my past? or even, should I change my past?

I have two concerns. The first is fairly obvious (I think); if I change my past then my current no longer exists – a current which for the most part I’m pretty happy with. I had to go through some messy relationships, for example, so that I could become the person I am today who my wife loves. And have my children.

Evolutionary caution

Admittedly this the same argument that pro-evolutionists provide in response to the idea that life as we know it exists in a very small Goldilocks zone: we can live only within a very narrow window of environmental conditions – exactly the right temperature, atmospheric composition, gravity strength, etc..

The reason, they say, is that life evolved to fit into this environment, the same way that the shape of a puddle, for example, fits exactly with the ground on which it lies. Change the shape of the ground, and the shape of the puddle will adapt and change.

In a similar way then, it can be argued that my own evolution in time – how I changed and reacted to events in my history (read “temporal environment”) means that I’ve simply adapted to it and end up ‘placed’ in my present.

I met my wife because she’s the one who was at the same place at the same time that I was. If my history was different, I’d have been at another place at another time and met a different lady and I might have fallen in love with her instead.

My marital status, and with whom, has adapted in the same way as the puddle that’s sitting comfortably on the ground.

Changing my past then, means I’ll evolve into someone else who either won’t be loved by my wife (from now), or even won’t love her. Or simply that I wouldn’t have even met her. So no loss with a changed history as I’ll have some other woman (or let’s be conceited – let some other woman have me).

Even though my no wife may not mind (as the same applies to her temporal environment too) I find this an egocentric point of view, and unacceptable…which brings me onto my second issue – changing my history changes other people’s histories too – and I don’t think I have the right to do that.

Morality or mortality?

The movie “About Time” and a time travel novel I recently reviewed (Buckyball by Fabien Roy) both cover issues where children no longer exist thanks to a historical change. Not just different children, but actually not there. If I’ve removed their presence, isn’t that akin to murder?

The get-out clause is that these children never get to exist so who have I murdered? But…they already have existed (see why why time travel grammar gets tricky?!) so I still maintain that such a change in history would be unethical.

Am I being too strict here? If I change history then people die (or at least, never get to exist). It’s true that the other side of the coin is that other people get to exist who wouldn’t otherwise exist – but I think it’s pretty obvious that creating babies to justify murdering others has a very dodgy moral foundation.

Are we really in control?

Perhaps my issue is made clearer if we put the shoe on the other foot and rephrase the original question. Lets change it from “What would you (or we) change” to “How would you feel if the Government was able to change history?”

Or the military. Or your idiot next door neighbour?

Feel safe? I don’t. It’s a loss of control.

Whilst Buckyball is more to do with reliving history than changing or rewriting it, it does touch on the idea that your present can be taken away if someone else is in control. It’s a worrying thought.

So changing your past? Yeah, you can do that, but then a second later someone else might change theirs and that might affect yours. Better to go last then, I think. Better to wait and let all the chips fall and see where they lie before making any decisions.

Or maybe we should just wait indefinitely…

Of course, the above arguments assume that whoever is in control of the time travel technology is also in control of the changes and the effects of those changes. It’s easy to imagine a version of the present which we’re not happy with, whether it’s instigated by ourselves or by a third party. That’s been the subject of countless Hollywood time travel movies. We’ve been warned.

Personally, I think that generally we should take responsibility for our actions in the past, and leave the past well alone.

Living with the consequences…

But I also acknowledge that it’s true that sometimes we need to deal with the consequences that others have caused and I guess that this is where the grey area makes itself known. If some idiot politician orders an army to raid a town or village then why should the families of those innocent victims have to live with it? Then I think messing about with the past to harmlessly fix other people’s mistakes might be justified.

But that’s the time travel version of a first aid bandage. I like the Alex’s philosophy in Sherrie Cronin’s z2. Alex maintains that from now we have the capability of creating and shaping the future which lies ahead of us – and ahead of others. That makes now really important because it’s effects can ripple forwards in time indefinitely.

…or creating new ones?

I’ll finish with a quote from Churchill who saw history from a futuristic viewpoint:

“History will be kind to me, for I intend to write it”

Or to paraphrase: “I’ll write my present so that my future will be good to me.”

Shouldn’t we all just agree to leave the past alone, and concentrate on creating a new and better future?

What do you think? Are there morals involved when it comes to changing the past?


If you enjoyed this post, you might like to visit, like or circle time2timetravel on Facebook and Google+

Sign up here to receive future posts sent direct to your email!

Que sera sera. Is Destiny really Fixed?

Darth Vader and Doris Day would make a good couple – they both believe the future is fixed. If that’s the case, the need for time travel may be under question. What do we expect from time travel if our destiny is fixed and the past cannot be changed?

Darth Vader and Doris Day would make a good couple – they both believe the future is fixed. And if that is the case, the need for time travel may be under question.

Que sera sera – Whatever will be will be.

Or as Darth Vader said…It is your destiny.

The future is fixed. You can’t change it. Get a grip and deal with it. Que sera sera. Whatever will be will be.

it is your destiny
Darth Vader: It is your destiny.
Image credit: destinationhollywood.com.
Doris Day: Que sera sera. Whatever… Image credit: dorisdaytribute.com

The sentiment behind que sera sera seems to be in line with one of the golden rules of time travel; that the past cannot be changed.

What has been, has been.

If the past cannot be changed, and the future is set, one might argue what is the point of time travel? Indeed, a philosophical question.

Maybe time travel is just there for the observational voyeuristic element.

That would certainly account for the lack of time travellers seen wandering amongst our hours and minutes of the present…although the Star Trek “Prime Directive” which nuttles down to respecting non-interaction between those who can and can’t, rears the silent head of a big brother who’s watching over us.

But would observation be good enough? Why travel through time when all we can do is hear and see but not do anything? What good is waking up and smelling the coffee if we can’t take a swig and truly experience the taste of it?

Then again, Luke Skywalker didn’t follow the destiny as described by Vader, did he?

Maybe we can control the future, even without a time machine.

Just wondering…


If you enjoyed this post, you might like to visit, like or circle time2timetravel on Facebook and Google+

Sign up here to receive future posts sent direct to your email!

Time travel through genetic projection

Having children arguably takes you back to your own childhood…if not they make you feel your own age. Here I present a corollary; children are not just the future – they are our genetic projections into it!

Having children arguably takes you back to your own childhood…if not they make you feel your own age.

Here I present a corollary.

We all travel in time. We’re born young, we experience moments and age as our minds gain wisdom and our bodies reach a peak in physical condition before embarking on a downward decline terminating in our demise.

“Will Human Teleportation Ever Be Possible?”
Image credit: http://discovermagazine.com/

Star Trek has teleporters which work by mapping a person at one end, disintegrating them, and cloning them at another point in space. All memories and experiences are preserved in the map and are therefore conserved, and even though that reconstruction is only seconds old, their memories and experiences are exactly the same as the version of them that had had disintegrated. It’s therefore purported that they are essentially the same person.

Teleportation – a projection of a person through the spatial dimension.

Image credit: Cécile Graat (http://www.gracedesign.nl/)
Image credit: Cécile Graat (http://www.gracedesign.nl)

I wonder whether parents can in part say a similar kind of thing…that by creating a child with a similar (though admittedly not identical) genetic makeup, and raising them with shared experiences, and similar (though again, admittedly not identical – due to those genetic differences) moral values…can we say that our children are a projection of ourselves into the future?

If this is the case, parents are time travelers in a different sense than non-parents.

This time travel capacity of our children makes sense; each time my daughter topples over I yell out “Hey be careful there!” after the event!


If you enjoyed this post, you might like to visit, like or circle time2timetravel on Facebook and Google+

Sign up here to receive future posts sent direct to your email!

A decision back in time

Do we have a free will when we make a decision with time travel? Is the past fixed, and the future a set fate or destiny? The linear model of time doesn’t account that knowledge of the future affects the past, when even logic would suggest that is so. Alternative (multidimensional) models, such as those given by quantum mechanics would perform better. The future is yours. So is your history!

A thermodynamic solution

Lightning follows the simplest route through the sky; the path of least (electrical) resistance. A river flows from inland to the coastline in a similar fashion, flowing where hydrodynamic friction is minimal. It costs less energy.

Maybe linear time flows in a similar fashion, following the easiest route, costing the least energy.

Time for lightning!
Does time flow like lightning?

There is an argument that the arrow of time can only move in one direction due to the second law of thermodynamics which says that entropy must always increase or stay the same. Entropy is the degree of disorder; a measure of chaos.

This is to say, that given any process it’s always easier to attain a disordered state than an ordered one. For example, it’s easier to sprinkle sugar into a cup of tea and let it dissolve, than it is to crystallise the sugar back out of the tea and collect the sugar crystals and put them back into the sugar bowl.

What this means in relation to time travel is that time is uni-directional; it can only move in the forwards direction because moving backwards would mean a decrease in entropy and that’s thermodynamically speaking, illegal.

An alternate history

I recently read a discussion on a forum which centered on a couple of members who expressed a wish to go back to their past and change it so that they could relive a new life. I made a comment that changing our past may cause the creation of a new timeline, or a new multiverse where an alternative version of ourself would indeed live a new life…but that the original version of us would still exist and not experience that ‘new’ life.

My comment was followed up with an insightful view on human nature, that “…we have a tendency to “make the same mistakes” over and over”.

When I read that, I wondered whether this is because of the “the past is the past and cannot be changed” nut which cannot be cracked, or whether it’s simply the easiest route to follow.

“An easy route…”?

It’s easier to fall with gravity than it is to climb against it. It takes less energy; it’s the easiest path, or ‘decision’.

Why do we make a certain decision? We take factors into consideration, weigh them up and make a decision based on the information at hand.

Even though the decision itself may be difficult (or following through with it), the answer is essentially the ‘easiest’ path to follow because it’s the outcome after the factors have been weighed and measured. By definition, it’s the correct solution, simply because it’s the outcome of the decision making process, whether it’s been made with our head or with our heart.

The easiest route for one person may not be easy for someone else.

Here’s an example. What shape fits into a round hole? Circle, square or triangle?

There’s an expression that “you can’t fit a square peg into a round hole”. So we’d say a circle.

And this is what we teach our children. At the same time, they might find it easiest to hold the sides of a triangle or a star rather than a smooth circle, and wedge that into the hole. They choose the easiest solution for themselves.

A case for free will?

Dr Cox said that time travel is like finding a teapot in orbit around Venus. There’s nothing in the laws of physics to prevent it, it’s just extremely unlikely.

This is sounding statistical!

On a statistical footing, Stephen Hawkins in his book The Grand Design puts forward the idea that on a physical and chemical basis, there is a pre-known outcome in every decision. Momentum, energy, pathways, velocities and reactions etc. of the atoms, molecules and neurons in our brain all follow a prescribed – and therefore predictable – course. Thus, every choice we make has an inevitable outcome. It’s already been made.

In reality, there are so many billions of factors and environments (i.e. variables in the ‘decision equation’) as well as the sheer multitude of combinations and permutations, that effectively a decision cannot be reasonably predicted – and so we lump them all up and call it “free will”.

But free will can be dealt with on a semi-statistical / empirical basis. For example, it’s more likely that a vegetarian will choose to eat a salad for dinner tonight than a roast chicken. The vegetarian has a free will, but we can predict his answer reasonably well.

But let’s say that the lettuce is teeming with disease-ridden caterpillars. The vegetarian wants to go back and inform his younger self to stay clear of the lettuce.

Would his going back in time, armed with this new information gleaned from hindsight (or foresight, in this case) alter the original decision and allow for a new history (and self) to be created?

How likely is it the vegetarian would choose the chicken? Or would he still go for the salad but try to pick out the caterpillars? After all, he is a vegetarian. (And please note, I’m not saying here that vegetarianism is a wrong decision).

In these posts about the importance of history (Part 1 | Part 2) I pointed out how knowledge of the past can significantly affect how we might choose to behave in the present.

decision making with time travel
Do we have a free will when making a decision with time travel?

Knowledge of the history can and does affect the present and the future. These states in time are not wholly independent from each other, they’re cross related…which can be difficult to describe in a linear model of time.

Likewise, the idea that knowledge of the future affects the past wouldn’t fit into the linear model well either. This misfit is the ontological paradox, yet it wouldn’t exist in a multidimensional model of time, such as could be afforded through a quantum description.

Quantum mechanics turns the linear model on its head. The set laws of classical physics don’t apply when it comes to quantum scales so it might not be the case that every particle is predictable. A quantum particle can exist simultaneously in two states, in two places and at two times, for example. It gives Schrodinger’s cat a fighting chance.

The ‘easiest’ solution, then, now operates on more dimensions than the linear time line. Predictability is thrown out of the window and into orbit around Venus with its friend, the teapot.

Free will triumphs. And time travel? It’s looking like it will open up the opportunity for alternate histories and futures which may well have already played out. The past need not be set, and the future need not be predefined as our destiny or fate.

The future is yours…so is your history! Go grab them!


If you enjoyed this post, you might like to visit, like or circle time2timetravel on Facebook and Google+

Sign up here to receive future posts sent direct to your email!

Thinking ahead

We naturally tend to think ahead, so is our psychology mapped to the future? How would you respond to the following question:

When do you feel happier – 3 pm on a Friday, or 9 pm on a Sunday?

Many would say the former, as the weekend is approaching when we’re not shackled up with employment. The irony is that at 3 pm on a Friday afternoon we’re still at work when we’d rather be at home…like at 9 pm on a Sunday evening.

(This is of course forgetting that time is greater than money!)

Maybe our minds live further along the time axis than the rest of us!


The Importance of History: An Unexpected Part 2!

Yesterday (or was it last week? 😉 ) I posted a timely thought which explained why history is important. I used an example of flipping an unbiased coin which repeatedly turned up tails, and stated that even though historical performance would suggest another tails on the next flip, the chances of heads showing on the next flip was still 50%.

I think a 50% chance of a heads showing is incorrect. It should be higher!

This is because that there are 2 possible outcomes of a flipped coin, so 50% chance of getting either one of them. The implication then is that with 2 coin flips, we’d expect 1 head and 1 tail. With 4 flips we’d expect 2 heads and 2 tails.

With 100 flips, we’d expect 50 heads and 50 tails.

But who’s to decide the order in which those heads and tails come? Alternate? Or all one and then the other?

So take the example in my original post where 50 flips had given tails. I’d stated a 50% probability of the next flip being heads. But if the probability is 50% for 100 flips, then the probability of the 51st flip being heads is now…100% !!!

So it seems that history is even more important than I had previously thought…although I wonder whether this is because we know something about the future i.e. there will be 100 coin flips and then no more.

But let’s add in a parallel consideration…we’ve considered this particular coin, but shouldn’t we be taking in all coins, and all of their flips, ad infinitum? That would mean we’re back at a 50% chance of a head.

So boundary limits impact the probability; events at all places at all times impact the importance of history and what that history means for the future.

Interesting that although I’m now a little wiser in the future…a little hindsight about foresight would have helped when I first wrote!


Is History Important?

I’m not one for history. It relates to things in the past. Not necessarily forgotten about, but it’s been, it’s gone, and it’s over. Done and dusted.

But however dusty those history books might be, I do concede that history is important. I hold no sympathy for the “You don’t know where you’re going if you don’t know where you’ve been” line, but history can effect the present and the future.

Here’s an example.

An unbiased coin is flipped, and tails comes up.

It’s flipped again, and again it’s tails.

And it’s tails again and again and again, and so on…at 50 flips the coin is still coming up tails.

The probability of heads coming up for the 51st flip, mathematically speaking, is still 50% i.e. there is an equal chance of getting either heads or getting tails.

But given the history, what would you bet on…heads or tails?

See how history is important?! 😉