PD Smith

Much Too Difficult For Us

Times Lit­er­ary Sup­ple­ment, 18 May 2012, p 29

Build Your Own Time Machine: The Real Sci­ence of Time Trav­el, by Bri­an Clegg (Duck­worth), 311 + vii pp. Duck­worth. £14.99. ISBN: 978–0715642900

Review by P. D. Smith

 

“Time,” said Borges, “is the one essen­tial mys­tery.” Borges loved the sub­ver­sive­ness of time in HG Wells’s The Time Machine (1895) and Bri­an Clegg’s explo­ration of time and time trav­el begins, albeit briefly, with Wells’s fic­tion­al jour­ney into the fourth dimen­sion.

Of course, in one sense we are all time trav­ellers. We move for­wards at the rate of one sec­ond per sec­ond. And we can also trav­el back in time through our mem­o­ries, the favoured medi­um of anoth­er fic­tion­al time trav­eller, Van Veen, Nabokov’s “epi­cure of dura­tion” in Ada or Ardor (1969). But unfor­tu­nate­ly, despite the sci-fi cov­er of his book, Clegg is not espe­cial­ly inter­est­ed in either mem­o­ry or fic­tion­al treat­ments of time trav­el. Instead, he has writ­ten a detailed account of the sci­ence of time trav­el, for as he says at the out­set, “there is no phys­i­cal law that pre­vents time trav­el”. In prin­ci­ple, the fan­tasies of Wells might just be pos­si­ble, although as Clegg makes clear, the prac­ti­cal and engi­neer­ing prob­lems are immense.

He begins, as all stud­ies of mod­ern physics must, with Ein­stein and rel­a­tiv­i­ty. Through­out this book the sci­ence is described with clar­i­ty and even elegance. Einstein’s the­o­ries pro­vide the con­cep­tu­al rules for what is or is not pos­si­ble as regards trav­el through the fourth dimen­sion. The math­e­mat­ics of spe­cial rel­a­tiv­i­ty (1905) show that if you were to trav­el faster than light then you would be mov­ing back­wards in time: “if it becomes pos­si­ble to go fast enough, the result can be a rever­sal of the flow of time”. Einstein’s lat­er the­o­ry of gen­er­al rel­a­tiv­i­ty also intro­duced the idea that space-time itself could be warped: “Grav­i­ty has an impact on time as well as on space.” Both spe­cial and gen­er­al rel­a­tiv­i­ty there­fore offer the­o­ret­i­cal pos­si­bil­i­ties for manip­u­lat­ing time.

On 7 May 2005, a rather spe­cial event was held at the Mass­a­chu­setts Insti­tute of Tech­nol­o­gy. It was a wel­com­ing par­ty for time trav­ellers. A stage was set up in a court­yard and the­atri­cal smoke released to cre­ate the right atmos­phere of sus­pense­ful antic­i­pa­tion. It was a clever idea. An event such as this, which had been wide­ly adver­tised and report­ed (effec­tive­ly send­ing an invi­ta­tion into the future), would pro­vide an ide­al oppor­tu­ni­ty for any future time trav­ellers to reveal them­selves. Unfor­tu­nate­ly no one from the future turned up. For Stephen Hawk­ing this is evi­dence that time trav­el is not pos­si­ble. Clegg dis­agrees. He makes the intrigu­ing point that time trav­el mech­a­nisms based on rel­a­tiv­i­ty can­not send any­thing back before the moment at which they were switched on. There­fore, as no one has yet invent­ed a time trav­el machine, we would not expect to see vis­i­tors from the future. But he qual­i­fies this, say­ing that it does not pre­clude the pos­si­bil­i­ty that unknown alien civ­i­liza­tions may have already invent­ed time-trav­el tech­nol­o­gy. And, he adds, if they are advanced enough to voy­age into the fourth dimen­sion, it is pos­si­ble that they may also have mas­tered the art and sci­ence of remain­ing invis­i­ble.

Fan­tas­tic though these sug­ges­tions sound, Clegg nev­er fails to high­light the prac­ti­cal dif­fi­cul­ties of time trav­el. He uses the famous twins para­dox, a thought exper­i­ment derived from rel­a­tiv­i­ty, to illus­trate some of these. Accord­ing to this, if one of the twins remains on Earth while the oth­er trav­els away in a space ship at extreme­ly high speeds, the effects of both time dila­tion due to the high speeds and the accel­er­a­tion cause them to age dif­fer­ent­ly. As Van Veen puts it in his study of The Tex­ture of Time, “the galac­to­naut and his domes­tic ani­mals, after tour­ing the speed spas of Space, would return younger than if they had stayed at home all the time.”

But although the sci­en­tif­ic con­cepts sound (rel­a­tive­ly) sim­ple, the appli­ca­tion of the sci­ence to achieve time trav­el is chal­leng­ing, to say the least. Clegg cal­cu­lates you would need 10 bil­lion times the amount of ener­gy pro­duced by every pow­er sta­tion in the US run­ning for 250 years in order to push a space-shut­tle-sized craft up to 90 per cent of the speed of light. And, of course, accord­ing to rel­a­tiv­i­ty the faster some­thing goes the more its mass increas­es. So in fact you would need vast­ly more pow­er – per­haps the equiv­a­lent of 800 or so years of pow­er gen­er­a­tion. And even then it would take eight years to trav­el a mere eleven years into the future.

Despite the title, the les­son of Build Your Own Time Machine seems to be that no one will be doing so any time soon. Clegg sets up ele­gant and fas­ci­nat­ing the­o­ret­i­cal pos­si­bil­i­ties for time trav­el only to show that the prac­ti­cal dif­fi­cul­ties are vir­tu­al­ly insur­mount­able. The options for poten­tial time trav­ellers include cut­ting up a neu­tron star to build a vehi­cle made of neu­tron star mate­r­i­al whose grav­i­ta­tion­al field slows time; quan­tum entan­gle­ment (described by Ein­stein as “spooky action at a dis­tance”) which enables small-scale tele­por­ta­tion; and Gödel’s pro­pos­al of a rotat­ing uni­verse in which space-time is curved, mak­ing it the­o­ret­i­cal­ly pos­si­ble to loop back in time.

The longest chap­ter in the book (“Alice through the worm­hole”) con­sid­ers the tru­ly mind-bog­gling physics of black and even white holes, the lat­ter described as “a black hole that runs back­ward in time…a sin­gu­lar­i­ty of cre­ation rather than of destruc­tion”. The­o­ret­i­cal­ly, two white holes back to back in space might cre­ate a worm­hole, a short­cut through space and, indeed, through time, because you would trav­el through it at speeds faster than light. The renowned physi­cist and futur­ol­o­gist Michio Kaku has even designed a time machine based on this idea. Clegg remains dis­tinct­ly scep­ti­cal, how­ev­er, and even Kaku admits: “This is for a very advanced civ­i­liza­tion, not for us.”

Clegg proves him­self to be a lucid guide to the often com­plex sci­ence of time trav­el. His ambi­tious book cov­ers more or less the whole of twen­ti­eth-cen­tu­ry physics from rel­a­tiv­i­ty to string the­o­ry and at times his obvi­ous plea­sure at explain­ing each and every eso­teric the­o­ry threat­ens to obscure the book’s true sub­ject (some care­less bio­graph­i­cal errors have crept into his nar­ra­tive as well: for instance, the young Ein­stein stayed in Switzer­land with the Win­tel­er fam­i­ly not the “Wintlers”; the friend who helped him with his math­e­mat­ics while an under­grad­u­ate was Mar­cel Gross­mann, not “Gross­man”; and his sec­ond wife Elsa Löwenthal, née Ein­stein, was rather more than a “friend” when she met him: she was his cousin). But, as Clegg says, the idea of time trav­el does indeed pro­vide a “delight that the feats of no oth­er near-pos­si­ble tech­nolo­gies bring.” Just don’t expect to be jump­ing into your DeLore­an time machine in the near future.

[N.B. This may dif­fer from the ver­sion print­ed in the TLS.]