Received a letter from Albert (Einstein) in which he expounds upon the parallel universe theory of time travel. In particular, he takes me to task – and rightly so – for sloppy nomenclature. He reminds me that this second universe is not parallel to the original one. How could it be, when its starting point is in the other universe?
(He also wrote two pages on the question of whether or not what I’ve been calling the “original” universe is in fact, original. How do we know it is not itself the result of a time travel incident in some other universe, ad infitum? The answer, of course, is that we don’t know, but I simply cannot be bothered with such an irrelevant detail. Perhaps I’ll write about that at another time.)
But back to the parallel nomenclature. In our research, Albert and I are both fond of this simple drawing:
where the first line is the original universe, and the second is, of course, our own universe. In other words, we are rightly called a tangential universe. I know this, but I have not been rigorous in insisting that others use the correct term.
I blame Casey for this. The girl is irrepressible. From the beginning, she has said “parallel universe,” which I think she got from Star Trek or something. We had so many obstacles to overcome at the beginning, that it felt cruel to pester her about such a little thing. But truly, it makes a difference.
For instance, because this universe has a point in common with the original one, I have hopes that we can someday go back there. There is much research yet to do, but I believe it has to do with the neutrinos. They are at the core of time travel, after all. And the neutrinos in this universe have a common nature with those in the original. Like cousins separated over distance, they may have a proclivity to find each other. It is this that I hope to harness someday. After I’ve managed to invent the electron microscope, of course. We’ve advanced the technology quite a bit since arriving here, but we’re not that far along, yet.