| |< | << | >> | >| |
|---|
| |< | << | >> | >| |
|---|
| Introduction Glossary Quasiscience Axioms Type Summaries Type One Plots (Deterministic) Type Two Plots (Elastic) Type Three Plots (Overwriting) Type Four Plots (Quantum-Forking) Appendix Antescript |
| |< | << | >> | >| |
|---|
Time is the dimension which is asymmetrical with regard to entropy. The way acceleration tilts your time-axis relative to the dimensions of space in Einsteinian physics may complicate things slightly, but anyone who thinks this definition isn't mysterious enough might as well fuck off right now. (Sorry about that, but there are some real fruitcakes out there.)
Many time travel plots derive their dramatic tension from some variant of the question "Will this act change history, and/or will my home timeline survive?" - the answer to which depends on the fictional world's temporal structure - and are thus (tacitly) "experiments" testing the paradox-proofing of hypothetical causal frameworks. Some authors like to hide technical details behind smokescreens of jargon; but I reckon SF is more fun when you can tell what's going on.
This page now has a companion article entitled
A Primer In SF Xenolinguistics
and visitors to the past or
future may also wish to learn the local
lingo.
| |< | << | >> | >| |
|---|
The following chronophysics jargon definitions can be revisited by clicking on the terms where they occur in the text.
| |< | << | >> | >| |
|---|
The following "laws of time" - commonly referred to in SF - can be very useful for plot purposes, and are often taken for granted, but they should not be mistaken for necessary facts about the chronophysics of the real world (personally, I reckon they're all nonsense; see Appendix, plus my Star Trek Rant for more about "quasiscience"). Contributions, including especially unwitting ones, are welcome.
| |< | << | >> | >| |
|---|
There are four different possible sets of "laws of chronophysics" for Time Travel plots, although all but the most pedantic writers tend to blur the distinctions somewhat, and anything as confused as "Quantum Leap" is unclassifiable. I suspect that the cosmos we're living in is a Type Zero Travelproof (AKA Recalcitrant) Time Line - the sort (excluded from consideration here as no fun) where it's just not possible to build a Time Machine. But arguments about this are doomed to be mere axiom-juggling unless we can get experimental evidence... and even then it's almost impossible to disprove types Two and Four.
| TYPE ONE | The Deterministic (AKA Permanent) Time Line. | ![]() |
| Strict version: | History is utterly immutable. Attempts to "ad lib" always turn out to have been scripted all along. | |
| Lax version: | "Trivial" changes are allowed. | |
| Metatime: | There is no metatime. | |
| Paradoxes: | Closed Loops (phenomena created by their own effects). | |
| Doppelgangers: | The elder self (a powerful ally). | |
| Saboteurs: | Fated to fail (the gun misfires, you sneeze, or whatnot). | |
|
||
| TYPE TWO | The Elastic (AKA Resilient) Time Line. | ![]() |
| Strict version: | History has a preferred course/direction, and makes "corrections" (over time or metatime) for any interference. | |
| Lax version: | The timestream can be permanently diverted. | |
| Metatime: | Warped - histories revert and/or at least converge. | |
| Paradoxes: | Both Closed Loops and Loose Ends (inconsistently). | |
| Doppelgangers: | The replacement self (into which you may mutate). | |
| Saboteurs: | Confused (likely to suffer Anachronist Amnesia etc). | |
|
||
| TYPE THREE | The Overwriting (AKA Contingent) Time Line. | ![]() |
| Strict version: | History is highly vulnerable. Any Time Travel "erases" the original and replaces it with a freshly generated new version. | |
| Lax version: | Histories may be reluctant to diverge. | |
| Metatime: | Layered; "abolished" Time Lines are accessible only via meta-Time Travel! | |
| Paradoxes: | Loose Ends (phenomena which prevent their own cause). | |
| Doppelgangers: | The ultimate rival (one of you will end up abolished). | |
| Saboteurs: | Good hunting - Hitler dies and stays dead. | |
|
||
| TYPE FOUR | The Quantum-Forking (AKA Multi-Divergent) Time Line. | ![]() |
| Strict version: | The "Many Worlds" interpretation of Quantum Physics: the cosmos constantly bifurcates into all possible alternatives. | |
| Lax version: | Countable forkings (at "historic turning points"). | |
| Metatime: | Mindboggling (nothing is ever truly abolished). | |
| Paradoxes: | Technically, neither kind can occur, but they can seem to. | |
| Doppelgangers: | Hordes of microdiverged timetwins. | |
| Saboteurs: | Futile - you can't get at the Hitler from your home Time Line. | |
| |< | << | >> | >| |
|---|
Time-meddlers meet themselves leaving, fail in neatly dovetailing ways, and worry about free will. Tales of abortive attempts to alter history (e.g. Terminator 1) often turn out when examined to be set in a probable Type One Time Line after all, which is rather anticlimactic. It's less traumatic if you don't try to "interfere", so Wellsian time-tourist stories commonly use this backdrop. For further examples see "Dragonflight" (McCaffrey), "The Anubis Gates" (Powers), and "Twelve Monkeys".
The special paradox associated with Type One chrononautics (almost unavoidable when retrograde Time Travel occurs in such a Time Line) is the Closed Loop:
Such "paradoxes" are nothing to be afraid of - in fact they can be very handy. Any intelligent person in a Type One plot can "bootstrap" godlike powers... indeed, even Bill and Ted can figure it out. In any tricky situation, your elder self can bail you out; any seeming disaster can be negated by going back and converting it into a fake - so when you thought you witnessed your own death it was really an android, or a hologram, or (cheapest and simplest) a post-hypnotic suggestion! Type One Time Travelling civilisations usually turn out to have been bootstrapped into existence in the first place.
| |< | << | >> | >| |
|---|
This is essentially a muddled compromise between Types One and Three, and requires an implausibly purposive history-defending force. But as it makes modifying the future more of a challenge, it is common in Time-Cop and Temporal-Imperialist scenarios such as "The Legion Of Time" (Williamson), "The End Of Eternity" (Asimov) or "The Big Time" (Leiber), as well as in comedies such as (recent) Red Dwarf.
Plots set in Type Two Time Lines make use of both Closed Loop and Loose End paradoxes, which are logically incompatible - hence the proliferation of unnatural causal glitches and duff chronophysics in such stories. Ancestricides can never be sure what will happen; often they vanish or mutate to fit the new history, for no clearly apparent reason beyond literary tradition. Part of the problem here is the vagueness of motivation in the change-resisting force. What are its priorities? Is it trying to minimise the degree or duration of the divergence, the improbability of its corrections, or the number of witnesses? Is it allowed for instance to preserve recorded history by annihilating all incoming Time Machines via quantum miracle?
| |< | << | >> | >| |
|---|
Changes in the past produce an entirely independent new history. According to the strict interpretation, the arrival of any retrograde Time Machine instantly and permanently abolishes its home future! The commoner lax version assumes a replacement history implausibly like the old one, though it isn't clear how (e.g.) dice are meant to remember how they landed "last time". Among the few clear examples are (in order of laxity) "Lest Darkness Fall" (de Camp), "Bring The Jubilee" (Ward Moore), "Yesterday's Enterprise" (ST:TNG), and "The Sound Of Thunder" (Bradbury).
The endemic "paradox" type (inescapable in a strict Type Three Time Line) is the Loose End: any Time Machine can quite happily abolish its own history of origin, and thus its own causal basis. You can multiply gold bars, do "retakes", become World Dictator... but you can never go home, as even if history repeats itself, it ipso facto produces a new "you"! Type Three doppelgangers are bad news: they will never become you, or vice versa; so either of you can kill the other without ill effects. If you both have Time Machines, a single Time Line isn't big enough for both of you. A shoot-on-sight policy is less crazy than it sounds!
| |< | << | >> | >| |
|---|
Every "choice" causes the cosmos to bifurcate: each possible outcome occurs somewhere. SF plots in Type Four Time Lines - e.g. "All The Myriad Ways" (Niven), "The Coming Of The Quantum Cats" (Pohl) - tend simply to show off their "alternative histories", as any actual Time Travel within them gets extremely confusing. See for instance "The Time Ships" (Baxter).
If every collapsing wave-function (i.e. every non-deterministic event) produces forkings in the Time Line, far more copies of 2020 exist than 1920s. This hardly matters before Time Travel is invented, but then it's shattering. Imagine setting your chronoscaph's controls for a spot from which to shoot Hitler. As you hit "Launch", some particle somewhere decays (or not). Now there are two of you heading for the same grassy knoll. Or more likely, zillions of you - not to mention assassins after his chauffeur, time-tourists etc... all appearing at that same point in space-time. KAPOW! Was that the Berlin in our past you just nuked?! Limiting Time Machines to interbranch rather than intrabranch Time Travel doesn't stop double hops (USA 2020 to Byzantium 1970 to Berlin 1920), and even if you can only travel through "probabilities", not time (USA 2020 to Byzantium 2020), your doppelgangers will follow you.
In the strict quantum-physical version, there is a solution: the unpredictable (non)appearance of a Time Machine is itself a world-forking event, so there is a Time Line (ours) where it didn't happen; one where only you appear; and others for every mathematical combination of arriving Time Travellers, including all the quantum-miracle Time Machines from nowhere. This makes the universe even more alarmingly uncontrollable; furthermore, it means you can't kill the original Hitler, or return to your home Time Line by Time Machine.
The Type Four Time Line cannot contain genuine Closed Loops or Loose Ends (though it can seem to), but it can still induce bafflement. The main problem with a cosmos where everything that's even remotely possible happens somewhere is that it undercuts the concept of probability, and of "causing" or "preventing" anything (thus destroying any narrative tension). Many-Worldsists have technical fixes for this, but they're inadequate when a Time Machine can visit any Time Line regardless of its probability.
| |< | << | >> | >| |
|---|
Some of my favourite SF stories depend heavily on the metaphor of time as an "ever-rolling stream", but it always surprises me that people take it so literally. Time and a river have at most two features in common: each has two distinct "ends", and an inbuilt asymmetry of direction. Both these features also apply to, say, an armadillo; whereas rivers also have misleading characteristics like a rate of flow (see Axioms). Just what speed is this river meant to be moving at? The usual answer is "one second per second", but what detectable difference would it make if it was -9 s/s? We're not only applying the term "speed" where no displacement is involved, we're assuming a Newtonian yardstick of Absolute Time to measure against! Saying that "Mount Everest is moving into the future at a speed of 1 s/s" makes no more sense than saying "the road passes my house at a speed of 1 m/m", or "my TV varies in mass at a speed of 1 kg/kg"! You aren't "moving from birth to death" at any speed; you just extend into the future, in the same way that you extend a metre or two in height off the floor, and roads extend from A to B. It may sometimes be appropriate to use "time ratios" to compare two relativistic frames of reference; but other uses of "seconds per second" are gibberish.
Now, it can be hard to understand how an immobile dimension of time (added to three of space) is adequate to explain our experience of motion, change and "free will"... but it's not impossible. Those who fail frequently assume that hypothesising an extra dimension of "hyper-time" (over the course of which the Absolute Present Moment "moves") will help somehow. But if adding an immobile dimension didn't work the first time, how can you stop short of an infinite regress, which at least pushes your failure of imagination out of sight?
This whole topic is - for obvious reasons - hard to discuss in everyday language, which takes for granted the imagery of "moving through time". In Isaac Newton's diary, the word "now" meant 1697; in mine, "now" is 1997. But if this is evidence for a moving Present Moment (something I have heard people try to argue), then his use of "I" to mean Isaac Newton must be evidence of reincarnation! Likewise, metaphors like "in days gone by" or "it came to pass" are no more literally justified than "sunrise" or "from the heart". European languages such as English, or indeed Esperanto, treat tense - which is really a context-dependent "pointer" like "this", "on your left", "here" etc - as if it was an essential, objective feature of the event, just as plurality is an attribute of objects. And tense marking on verbs is obligatory, no matter how redundant or meaningless this is - whether the situation described is tenseless ("time is a dimension", "seven is prime"), tensed ("I was born in 1967", "Hitler shot himself") or indeed metatensed ("I will kill Hitler", "this Time Line has become unstable")! The best solution isn't the Hitch Hiker's Guide one of inventing special tenses for time travellers; it's the normal non-European approach of ignoring tense unless it's worth explicitly mentioning.
| |< | << | >> | >| |
|---|
(Most of this section was actually published - in an Edinburgh University SF society newsletter - several years before I compiled the rest of this essay, but for contorted reasons it's the last part to be added to this HTML version...)
| |< | << | >> | >| |
|---|