Closed Timelike Curves and The Fabric of Spacetime
a deep exploration with o1-pro
My Intro
OpenAI’s Deep Research and o1-pro help me deeply explore and research complex questions, some of them still requiring full answers, while others have only been partially elucidated.
For the matter elaborated below, I asked o1-pro to reason on the following:
If closed time-like curves existed, would they unhinge causality or reveal deeper cosmic constraints on free will?
Below is what o1-pro answered.
Introduction
Few concepts in theoretical physics stir the imagination—and controversy—quite like the notion of closed time-like curves (CTCs). In simple terms, a closed time-like curve is a path in the fabric of spacetime that loops back on itself, allowing an object or signal to return to its own past. In science fiction, time travel is portrayed in endlessly inventive scenarios, from traveling back to prevent a catastrophic event to creating paradoxes so tangled that they threaten the logical coherence of our universe. From a scientific standpoint, however, the question of whether CTCs could exist, and how they might interact with fundamental notions of causality and free will, delves into the very heart of modern theoretical physics, including general relativity, quantum field theory, and the philosophical underpinnings of time itself.
The possibility of CTCs arises primarily from solutions to Einstein’s field equations of general relativity—these solutions suggest that under certain exotic conditions, spacetime might be curved in a manner that permits a loop in time. Physicists have studied these theoretical solutions with deep curiosity, as they challenge our conventional ideas of cause and effect and test whether the laws of physics can remain internally consistent when confronted with time-travel-like phenomena. On one hand, if CTCs were physically realizable, it could imply that causality, a principle so foundational that it underpins nearly all empirical sciences, might be at risk of “unhinging.” On the other hand, some physicists and philosophers speculate that the presence of CTCs might reveal a deeper layer of cosmic constraints—perhaps unknown laws or principles that protect causality or strictly limit our freedom of action in time-travel scenarios.
In this expansive analysis, we will examine the scientific foundations of closed time-like curves, investigate the ways they could (or could not) disrupt causality, and explore their implications for free will and our understanding of temporal flow. We will adopt multiple perspectives—from classical general relativity and quantum mechanics to philosophical stances on time and determinism—in order to provide a wide-ranging view. Along the way, we will highlight potential blind spots in current theories, speculate about future research directions, and attempt to glean what these thought experiments teach us about the profound structure of spacetime. Ultimately, the question of whether CTCs unhinge causality or merely reveal a deeper coherence in the cosmos forces us to confront the limits of scientific knowledge itself.
1. The Basics: Time, Causality, and the Notion of Closed Time-like Curves
1.1. Time in Modern Physics
In Newtonian mechanics, time was absolute and universal, flowing the same way for all observers. Events were ordered in a strict sequence, preserving a “one-thing-after-another” framework that left little room for bizarre paradoxes. Einstein’s theory of special relativity, however, shattered this neat picture by showing that simultaneity is relative. Observers in different inertial frames can disagree on the order of events if those events are sufficiently far apart in space and close together in time. Despite this relativity of simultaneity, special relativity still preserves a global sense of causality through the concept of the “light cone.” A cause cannot influence a region outside its future light cone because such influence would require superluminal (faster-than-light) signaling. Time, in this view, may be relative, but causality is not easily violated.
General relativity (GR) extends special relativity to include gravity, describing spacetime as a dynamic entity that can curve in response to mass-energy. While GR also preserves local causality—nothing can travel faster than light locally—there are unusual global solutions to Einstein’s field equations that theoretically allow for loops in time. These are the so-called closed time-like curves: “closed” because they loop back on themselves, and “time-like” because they represent worldlines that remain within the light cone, meaning a massive object (or a person, in principle) could travel along them.
1.2. What Is a Closed Time-like Curve (CTC)?
A closed time-like curve is a path through spacetime where an object returns to its own past. More precisely, in mathematical language, a time-like curve is one that always remains within the light cone of each event along it—no faster-than-light travel is required. If such a path closes on itself, it means you could start at a given event (say, your birth), move forward in time in a legitimate physical manner, and eventually come back to the exact same event in spacetime (your birth), effectively meeting your younger self.
This possibility—while seemingly far-fetched—arises in certain exact solutions to Einstein’s equations. One classic example is the Gödel universe, discovered by Kurt Gödel in 1949. Gödel found a solution corresponding to a rotating universe in which CTCs exist for all observers. Another widely discussed scenario is the Tipler cylinder (or Van Stockum dust): an infinitely long, massive cylinder that rotates fast enough to “drag” spacetime around it and generate paths that loop back in time. Additionally, researchers have proposed that wormholes (shortcuts in spacetime) might be engineered or naturally occur in ways that permit closed time-like loops, if the wormhole’s mouths experience different rates of time flow relative to one another.
1.3. The Paradoxical Tension
The immediate reaction to CTCs is to picture well-known time travel paradoxes. The “grandfather paradox” is a staple example: if you go back in time and prevent your grandparents from meeting, you eliminate the conditions of your own birth, so how could you have traveled back in time in the first place? There are also subtler paradoxes, like the “information paradox,” where you bring back information from the future to the past, effectively creating information from nothing. These paradoxes rub uncomfortably against the principle of causality, which states that a cause precedes its effect.
Some physicists suspect that causality might remain unbreached via self-consistency constraints—laws of nature that ensure any trip around a CTC remains consistent. Others suspect that quantum phenomena could come to the rescue, or that some as-yet-unknown principle prohibits the formation of CTCs altogether. The tension between possibility and paradox motivates the question: Would closed time-like curves truly unhinge causality, or would they bring about deeper constraints on what free agents can and cannot do?
2. Closed Time-like Curves in General Relativity
2.1. Gödel’s Rotating Universe
When Kurt Gödel presented his rotating universe solution, it was as much a philosophical statement as a cosmological model. Gödel’s solution, derived under the Einstein field equations, features a non-trivial distribution of mass (often simplified as a form of negative pressure or cosmological constant-like effect) that induces a rotation in the spacetime fabric. Surprisingly, in this model, there exist paths that return you to your own past.
Although Gödel’s universe is not considered a realistic representation of our actual cosmos—observational data strongly suggests our universe is not rotating in this manner—its existence in theory implies that general relativity does not by itself forbid the creation of these loops in time. This solution set an important precedent: if general relativity allows even one model that admits CTCs, we cannot categorically dismiss the possibility without invoking additional physical or cosmological constraints.
2.2. Tipler Cylinders and Cosmic Strings
A similarly exotic scenario that generates CTCs involves an infinitely long rotating cylinder, sometimes called a Tipler cylinder. If the cylinder is massive and spins rapidly enough, it can “drag” spacetime in such a way that time-like geodesics may loop back on themselves. However, the requirement of an infinitely long cylinder with extreme rotational velocities makes this scenario questionable in real astrophysical contexts. It remains an interesting thought experiment, nonetheless.
Cosmic strings—infinitesimally thin, hyper-dense line objects predicted by some grand unified theories—might also induce exotic spacetime geometries under certain conditions. Two rapidly moving cosmic strings passing by each other could, in principle, create a configuration of spacetime that contains CTCs. While cosmic strings, if they exist, could be extremely rare and hard to detect, they represent another mechanism by which the universe might naturally create closed loops in time, at least mathematically.
2.3. Wormholes and Time Machines
One of the most popular science-fiction models of time travel centers on wormholes, or Einstein-Rosen bridges. In general relativity, a wormhole is a shortcut connecting two distinct regions of spacetime. If you somehow managed to stabilize a wormhole (which itself requires “exotic matter” with negative energy density to prevent collapse), you might set up conditions for time travel by placing one mouth of the wormhole in a region of space undergoing different gravitational or velocity-based time dilation relative to the other mouth. Over time, the two mouths of the wormhole end up at different points on each other’s timelines. Entering one mouth and exiting the other could, in principle, bring you back to an earlier era—creating, effectively, a closed time-like curve.
However, wormholes remain highly speculative. Quantum field theory strongly suggests that negative energy conditions are exceedingly difficult to arrange and maintain at macroscale. Moreover, Stephen Hawking proposed the “chronology protection conjecture,” hypothesizing that the laws of physics (likely quantum gravity effects) conspire to prevent the formation of macroscopic time machines. While not proven, many physicists suspect that full quantum gravity—a theory that merges general relativity with quantum mechanics—will indeed forbid the operational creation of CTCs.
3. Paradoxes and Possible Resolutions
3.1. The Grandfather Paradox and the Self-Consistency Principle
The most famous paradox that arises from time travel scenarios is the grandfather paradox: you travel back in time to kill your grandfather before he meets your grandmother, thus negating your birth, which in turn negates your ability to commit the act in the first place. If the logic is allowed to proceed unrestricted, you end up with a blatant contradiction.
One proposed resolution to the paradox is the “Novikov self-consistency principle,” which states that any action taken by a time traveler must be consistent with history. In other words, you can only engage in time travel loops that are self-consistent; the universe will not permit a contradiction. Under this principle, you might travel back in time and attempt to kill your grandfather, but you would fail through some improbable chain of events—your gun might jam, you might slip on a banana peel, or some other bizarre scenario would prevent the contradiction. Essentially, the principle posits that there is one consistent timeline, and no action can change past events in a way that generates logical contradictions.
Critics argue that the self-consistency principle can feel ad hoc—it seems to require that the universe “knows” to prevent paradoxes. Still, it is not mathematically inconsistent. In classical mechanics, constraints often arise in ways that enforce consistency. The deeper question is whether quantum effects would allow or forbid certain inconsistent scenarios.
3.2. The Many-Worlds Interpretation and Alternate Timelines
Another approach to avoiding paradox is to invoke the many-worlds interpretation, often discussed in the context of quantum mechanics. In this view, traveling back in time might branch you into a new quantum timeline, preventing any contradiction with the “original” timeline you left. You could kill your grandfather in this new branch, and while that branch’s version of you might never come into being, the original you remains unaffected in your home timeline.
This multi-branch or multiple-history approach circumvent paradoxes by effectively stating that any action in the past spawns or continues on a different branch, and you do not disrupt the consistent timeline you originally departed from. But questions remain as to whether this “splitting” of timelines could be physically realized, or whether it is merely a conceptual device. Many-worlds interpretations remain philosophically and scientifically debated, since they require a radical rethinking of probability, identity, and how quantum measurement or branching truly operates.
3.3. Mechanisms That Suppress or Prevent Paradoxes
Stephen Hawking’s “chronology protection conjecture” encapsulates the suspicion that nature forbids CTCs from forming in any practical sense. He speculated that vacuum fluctuations near a would-be time machine’s horizon might become infinitely large, destroying the time machine before it becomes operational. This line of reasoning suggests that quantum gravitational effects, which we do not yet fully understand, may act as a universal safeguard.
Other lines of inquiry look at entropy, the second law of thermodynamics, and how traveling “backwards” in time might create thermodynamic paradoxes that are somehow unsustainable. Some researchers argue that the cosmic censorship conjecture (the hypothesis that singularities in spacetime are always hidden within event horizons) might also guard against time loops, though that is more about preserving a well-defined external spacetime region than strictly about temporal loops.
In summary, while many paradoxes emerge if we treat the notion of time travel in a naive manner, there are also several proposed mechanisms—classical self-consistency, quantum mechanical branching, and protective principles—that might keep contradictions at bay. The theoretical debate remains open, highlighting both the potential fragility and resilience of causality as we currently understand it.
4. Implications for Causality
4.1. Does Causality Truly Break?
Causality is arguably the backbone of empirical science: we set up an experiment, change an independent variable, observe an outcome, and interpret cause and effect. If closed time-like curves existed, one might fear that this entire logical edifice would collapse. After all, how can you rely on cause-and-effect relationships if an event might be influenced retroactively by future conditions?
Yet, many theoretical analyses of CTCs suggest that causality would remain intact on a local level. No observer in a local inertial frame sees any superluminal signal. Instead, the “looping” effect emerges from the global geometry of spacetime. The bigger question is whether global acausality creeps in, rendering the universe logically inconsistent. Proposals like the Novikov principle maintain that global consistency can exist even with CTCs. In effect, you might have loops in time, but those loops are “fixed” in a self-consistent manner, preserving a broader sense of causality across the entire timeline. It is a subtle notion, one that challenges a purely linear sense of time but does not necessarily break the cause-effect principle beyond repair.
4.2. Determinism and Block Universe Views
In the block universe conception (often associated with special relativity and four-dimensionalism), all events—past, present, and future—are equally real within the manifold of spacetime. Time does not “flow” in an objective sense; rather, we perceive a flow due to our embeddedness in a temporal sequence. If the universe is indeed a block, then the presence of CTCs could mean that certain worldlines are loops embedded in the manifold. This might not “break” causality but reframe it. Every event is set in the geometry of spacetime—if there is a loop, it is part of the geometry. The “cause” and “effect” can be points on that loop.
From this perspective, the idea of “changing the past” does not arise, since the entire four-dimensional structure is fixed. You traveling back to your birth event is already part of the tapestry of spacetime; the notion that you could do something inconsistent simply never occurs, as the block universe is a static entity. This viewpoint can be conceptually challenging, as it suggests a hard determinism: everything that happens, including what might look like “changes in the past,” is just one tapestry of events. If that tapestry includes a time loop, so be it; but no contradictions arise if the geometry is self-consistent.
4.3. Are There Degrees of Freedom to Unhinge Causality?
A pressing question is whether any free agent in a CTC-laden universe has enough freedom to generate a paradox, or if the constraints of physics simply reduce the set of possible actions to those that do not violate consistency. If you truly have the free will to pull a trigger, you should, in principle, be able to do so. But if every attempt to pull the trigger fails due to improbable coincidences, do we really have free will—or is the universe conspiring to preserve itself?
This line of thinking provokes the suspicion that if CTCs exist, either we must accept that free will is heavily constrained by the geometry of spacetime, or else we must adopt an interpretation (like many-worlds) where paradoxes do not arise because branching timelines keep them separate. In either case, free will might look very different in a universe that permits time loops, whether it is drastically limited by a global self-consistency or it is “spread out” among multiple worlds.
5. Free Will and the Nature of Time
5.1. Classical Notions of Free Will vs. Determinism
The tension between free will and determinism predates modern physics by millennia. Philosophers have long debated whether humans can have genuine free will in a universe governed by deterministic laws. For classical physics in a Newtonian framework, Laplace’s demon suggested that perfect knowledge of the initial conditions and the laws of motion would allow one to predict the entire future (and the entire past) with absolute certainty.
Relativity and quantum mechanics altered this debate but did not necessarily resolve it. Quantum mechanics introduced probabilistic outcomes, but it remains unclear whether that randomness equates to genuine free will. In relativity, the idea that time is a dimension akin to space leads some philosophers to see all events as “laid out” in a block, removing any notion of a special, freely chosen present. The question of free will in physics remains as open and intricate as ever.
5.2. How CTCs Challenge Free Will Further
If CTCs are real, the challenge to free will becomes more extreme. Consider a traveler who enters a time loop with the intention of altering a pivotal historical event. If they are truly free in their choices, why could they not succeed? Yet if they do succeed, the future from which they departed changes, potentially negating the conditions that enabled their time travel. This cyclical logic leads back to the notion of self-consistency: perhaps they simply cannot succeed.
In a universe with CTCs, free will might thus be restricted to those actions that preserve self-consistency. Some argue that this is akin to saying that free will is an illusion in the presence of CTCs, as every action you take has always been part of the loop. Another viewpoint is that free will remains intact, but is circumscribed by the geometry of spacetime. If you try to do something contradictory, the probabilities align to thwart you—just as if you tried to break the laws of physics in other ways (e.g., exceeding the speed of light), you would fail. Perhaps free will is never truly unlimited; it is constrained by the laws of physics. In that sense, time loops are no different from other physical limitations.
5.3. Deeper Cosmic Constraints on Agency
One interpretation is that CTCs, far from unhinging causality, might reveal hidden constraints on agents in the universe—constraints that only become apparent when we push the boundaries of causality. If time loops exist, it might mean that the universe has a built-in mechanism (whether classical or quantum) to enforce consistency. This mechanism would be invisible in normal circumstances where time flows in one direction, but would reveal itself in time-travel scenarios.
This leads to intriguing speculation: Is the universe fundamentally deterministic, with every event in spacetime fixed, and free will is merely an emergent phenomenon? Or does the universe allow for multiple potential timelines, each consistent in its own right? Each viewpoint raises its own set of philosophical and physical questions. Some might argue that quantum mechanics is key—perhaps at a microscopic level, interfering with a timeline triggers quantum effects that shut down the possibility of a paradox or shift the traveler to a new branch of the wavefunction.
6. Alternative Perspectives and Counterintuitive Insights
6.1. The Role of Quantum Field Theory
While general relativity is the origin of CTC solutions, quantum field theory provides a different lens. Generally, attempts to combine quantum theory and relativity reveal that classical GR predictions often require quantum corrections. For instance, near a black hole, Hawking radiation emerges from quantum processes in curved spacetime. By analogy, if we try to form a CTC, perhaps vacuum fluctuations, or other quantum processes, grow unbounded and destroy the loop before it becomes traversable. This is the essence of Hawking’s chronology protection conjecture.
So, from a quantum field theory perspective, it might be that every theoretical scenario that gives rise to CTCs gets preempted by unstoppable quantum instabilities. This does not necessarily prove that CTCs cannot exist, but it suggests strong physical barriers that might appear only at energy scales or spacetime curvatures far beyond our everyday experience. Our ignorance about quantum gravity leaves a blind spot. It’s conceivable that a complete theory—string theory, loop quantum gravity, or another approach—will reveal new structures or constraints that forbid or strictly limit CTC formation.
6.2. Non-Linear Causality and Retrocausality
One of the more unconventional areas of study in quantum foundations is retrocausality—the idea that future boundary conditions might affect past events. Usually, we dismiss retrocausality as incompatible with normal causality. However, in certain interpretations of quantum theory (e.g., the transactional interpretation or two-time boundary formulations), the idea of influences traveling backward in time does not necessarily lead to paradox if carefully formulated.
Could closed time-like curves simply be macroscopic manifestations of a retrocausal principle embedded in quantum theory? This is speculative, but it points to a future area of research where quantum foundations, quantum gravity, and GR might converge on a deeper, subtler picture of causality—one that cannot be easily captured by our classical intuition.
6.3. Potential Technological Implications
Though purely speculative, one might wonder about advanced civilizations or future human technology harnessing CTCs. Could advanced beings create “time loops” to share knowledge, circumvent cosmic expansions, or correct catastrophic errors? Or would they discover that attempts to do so are always thwarted by unstoppable physical processes? The existence of time loops—if they could ever be stabilized—would revolutionize not just physics but every aspect of civilization, from knowledge accumulation to governance, morality, and personal identity.
Still, no known technology or foreseeable extension of current technology suggests any practical route to creating or harnessing CTCs. Even hypothetical wormholes remain far outside the realm of engineering feasibility. The tension between the theoretical possibility and the presumed practical impossibility is yet another dimension of the puzzle.
6.4. Philosophical Blind Spots
Modern physics focuses on local field equations and boundary conditions, but might have conceptual blind spots when dealing with global structures like CTCs. The mathematics of GR can yield exotic solutions that might not reflect physically realizable universes. We often rely on energy conditions (positive energy densities, etc.) to weed out “unphysical” solutions, but these conditions can be violated by quantum effects (e.g., the Casimir effect).
So, is the existence of a solution with a CTC truly indicative of a physically realizable phenomenon, or just a mathematical curiosity? Our reliance on classical field equations could be akin to analyzing classical fluid flow equations and concluding that certain vortex solutions imply physically realizable perpetual motion—only to realize that real fluids have viscosity and other complexities. Similarly, real spacetime might have “viscosity-like” quantum effects that shut down time loops.
7. Speculative Scenarios and the Future of Research
7.1. Laboratory Generation of Mini-CTCs?
Some have speculated whether high-energy collisions of particles might create transient, microscopic CTCs. If the energy density in a region of spacetime were high enough—and if quantum gravity permits exotic topologies—mini-wormholes or mini-CTCs might form and then evaporate. Detecting such phenomena would likely require capturing signals of unusual scattering processes, or the violation of unitarity in quantum mechanics. However, no conclusive evidence has emerged. Such speculation remains at the frontier, bridging particle physics, cosmology, and quantum information theory.
7.2. Quantum Information Approaches
In quantum information theory, researchers have theorized about “closed timelike curve” qubits and how they might process information. Notably, the Deutsch model for quantum circuits with CTCs explores how quantum states might evolve if they can interact with their past selves. This leads to peculiar effects, including the possibility of solving otherwise intractable computational tasks in polynomial time, effectively using time travel to shortcut certain complexity barriers. However, subsequent analyses suggest that when self-consistency conditions are applied, many of the “superpowers” gained from a CTC might vanish or become heavily constrained. Nonetheless, the exploration of these toy models offers a fascinating glimpse of how physics and information theory intersect in the presence of hypothetical time loops.
7.3. Hints from Cosmology
Current observational cosmology does not indicate any large-scale rotation or cosmic string networks that could lead to noticeable CTCs. The universe appears to be expanding uniformly (with small perturbations) rather than rotating in a Gödel-like manner. That said, the early universe was an extremely high-energy environment, and quantum fluctuations in that era might have left subtle topological features. The cosmic microwave background (CMB) data so far indicates a near-thermal distribution without obvious signals of large-scale anisotropies that a rotating or CTC-permitting universe might produce. Future cosmological surveys could refine these constraints.
Interestingly, the inflationary paradigm suggests that any peculiar topological features (including potential loops in spacetime) might have been stretched beyond our cosmological horizon, rendering them unobservable. Thus, it is challenging to rule out certain exotic possibilities on a cosmic scale.
8. Do CTCs “Unhinge” Causality or Reveal Hidden Structure?
Bringing all these threads together, we are confronted with two broad possibilities:
CTCs are physically unrealizable: Perhaps exotic solutions like Gödel’s rotating universe or Tipler cylinders are mathematical curiosities that do not correspond to actual phenomena. Chronology protection—whether in the form of quantum instabilities, unknown energy conditions, or quantum gravitational effects—could ensure that any attempt to form a time loop in practice is thwarted. If so, causality as we know it remains robust. The laws of physics might simply not allow the unhinging of causal order on a macroscopic scale.
CTCs exist but do not break causality: If, somehow, closed time-like curves can form and persist, we might find that rather than “unhinging” causality, they enforce or reflect a deeper cosmic principle—self-consistency. Instead of creating logical contradictions, the universe’s geometry might only permit loops that are consistent with a single, unalterable timeline (classical determinism) or with a quantum branching mechanism (multiple worlds). In this scenario, we learn that our intuitive sense of linear time is incomplete: cause-and-effect remains valid, but is embedded in a four-dimensional (or higher-dimensional) manifold that can contain loops.
In either scenario, causality is not naively “broken.” If it were truly broken, we would face irresolvable logical paradoxes, which physical theories generally disallow. Thus, the notion that CTCs would unhinge causality might be a reflection of human intuition about linear time, rather than a guaranteed physical result. The deeper truth might be that, should CTCs exist, the universe is structured in such a way as to prevent contradictions—pointing to hidden constraints on free will or additional, unrecognized physical laws.
9. Concluding Thoughts: A Universe with Potential Time Loops
The question of whether closed time-like curves unhinge causality or unveil deeper cosmic constraints on free will touches upon some of the most foundational elements of physics and philosophy. CTCs do, on the surface, threaten to unravel the logic of cause and effect—especially when we conjure up the usual science-fiction scenarios of traveling back to rewrite history. However, rigorous scientific treatments suggest that the laws of physics are likely more subtle and protective than they appear at first glance.
From general relativity’s exotic solutions to quantum mechanical arguments about chronology protection, the emerging picture is that if CTCs are at all possible, they come with robust self-consistency conditions or are heavily suppressed by quantum effects. In this way, the universe would not become a playground for paradoxes but rather a realm in which free will is either constrained or reinterpreted within a larger, possibly deterministic framework.
Moreover, considering the block universe viewpoint, time travel might be reimagined as traveling along a loop that has always existed in the structure of spacetime, leaving no room for inconsistent rewriting of the past. Or else the many-worlds perspective might allow for divergences that avoid paradox by branching into alternate timelines. Even then, we confront the daunting question of how quantum gravity—still unresolved—may ultimately shape or forbid such phenomena.
In the end, if closed time-like curves are more than hypothetical curiosities, they do not so much “break” causality as they force a reexamination of it. They might well reveal that our free will, far from being the unconstrained capacity to do otherwise, is embedded in a cosmos with strict boundary conditions. The significance of this possibility is profound, not just for physics but for our understanding of human agency, identity, and the nature of history. While the jury remains out pending a complete theory of quantum gravity and more empirical data, the exploration of CTCs remains a fertile testing ground for our best ideas about spacetime—and a constant reminder that reality may be stranger, and perhaps more coherent, than our linear intuitions allow.
My Conclusion
Ok, so… if time loops were real, could we actually change anything, or would the universe just be like, ‘lol, nice try’?
I’m no physics expert but this was definitely a readable heavy read. What do you think?
To reiterate on my previous posts, my biggest purpose with this post and many that will follow is to publish work from Deep Research and o1-pro because not many people are going to pay $240 a month for it.
If you have humanity-level-important questions that I could give to o1-pro or Deep Research, simply reply to this email and I’ll do my best to help out.