Time travel into the future sounds like a fiction problem until it is written in the language of clocks.

Every astronaut who has spent time in low Earth orbit has moved through time at a slightly different rate from people on the ground. The effect is tiny, far too small to feel, and it does not involve vanishing into another century. But it is real. When astronauts return from orbit, their own bodies and watches have experienced a little less time than the matching clocks left behind on Earth.

For a long stay aboard the International Space Station, the difference is measured in milliseconds. That is only a few thousandths of a second. It is also not a metaphor. It is the same physics that atomic clocks, aircraft experiments and satellite navigation systems have had to deal with for decades.

The reason comes from Einstein’s relativity. Time is not a universal background ticking at the same pace for everyone everywhere. It is measured along a path through spacetime. Change the path, change the gravity, or change the speed, and the amount of time recorded by a clock can change too.

In orbit, two relativistic effects work against each other.

The first is special relativity: a moving clock runs slower compared with one that remains in the reference frame doing the measuring. The faster the motion, the larger the effect. The International Space Station travels at about five miles per second, orbiting Earth roughly every 90 minutes, according to NASA. At that speed, the station’s clocks fall behind ground clocks by roughly 28 microseconds per day from velocity alone.

The second is general relativity: clocks run a little faster when they are higher in Earth’s gravitational field. The station is about 400 kilometres above the ground, where Earth’s gravity is slightly weaker. That altitude makes an ISS clock gain a few microseconds per day compared with a similar clock on the surface.

But the speed effect is larger. Add the two together, and an astronaut on the ISS ages roughly 20 to 25 microseconds less per day than someone who stayed on Earth. After six months, that comes to around four or five milliseconds. After a year, it is still only about nine milliseconds.

The smallest kind of future travel

This is why time travel into the future is not forbidden by physics. It happens whenever one path through spacetime accumulates less proper time than another and the two paths meet again.

The famous twin paradox is the cleanest thought experiment. One twin stays on Earth. The other travels at very high speed and returns. Because the travelling twin’s path through spacetime is different, less time can pass for them. They reunite in the future of the stay-at-home twin.

Human spaceflight is a mild, practical version of the same idea. Astronauts do not reach anything close to light speed, so the effect is small. But the logic is the same: a fast-moving orbital path accumulates slightly less time than a life spent on the surface.

The International Space Station is a good everyday example because the numbers are familiar. NASA says the station’s crew of seven lives and works while travelling at five miles per second, circling Earth about every 90 minutes. In 24 hours, the station makes 16 orbits and passes through 16 sunrises and sunsets.

That speed is enormous by human standards and tiny by relativistic standards. Light travels at 299,792,458 metres per second. The station moves at roughly 7,700 metres per second. That is enough for the effect to be measurable with good clocks, but not enough to make a human age noticeably differently.

The same is true for astronauts’ bodies. Biological ageing in space is dominated by radiation exposure, microgravity, stress, sleep disruption, fluid shifts, immune changes, bone loss and muscle loss. Those effects can be medically serious. Relativistic ageing is clean physics, but it is medically irrelevant at orbital speeds.

In other words, an astronaut may come back a few milliseconds younger by relativity while also needing weeks or months to recover from the physical demands of spaceflight. The relativity is real; it is not the main health story.

Related: Something four degrees from the heart of the Milky Way switched on and off six times in radio waves across nine months in 2020, showed roughly 25 percent circular polarisation that pointed to a strongly magnetised source, then left no trace in X-rays or infrared — a combination no existing class of object can account for

Why the effect has been trusted for decades

The idea that motion and gravity alter elapsed time is not resting only on astronaut arithmetic.

In 1971, Joseph Hafele and Richard Keating flew caesium atomic clocks around the world on commercial airliners, once eastward and once westward. When the clocks were compared with reference clocks at the U.S. Naval Observatory, the differences matched the combined predictions of special and general relativity. The eastward clocks, moving with Earth’s rotation, lost time overall. The westward clocks gained time because their motion relative to Earth’s centre was different and the gravitational effect from altitude also mattered.

Modern optical clocks have pushed this much further. In 2010, a team led by C. W. Chou, D. B. Hume, T. Rosenband and D. J. Wineland reported in Science that optical atomic clocks could detect gravitational time dilation from a height difference of only 33 centimetres. They also measured the time-slowing effect of motion at speeds comparable to everyday movement.

Satellite navigation would also fail without relativity. GPS satellites carry atomic clocks, and those clocks are affected by both their orbital speed and their higher altitude. Their timing must be corrected so receivers on Earth can calculate positions accurately. A few microseconds per day is small for a person, but a navigation signal moving at the speed of light turns tiny clock errors into large position errors.

That is the practical lesson. Relativity is not only for black holes or particles racing through accelerators. It is built into orbit prediction, satellite timing, navigation and precision measurement. Astronauts are simply the human version of a clock sent along a different path.

Why orbit makes astronauts younger, not older

There is a subtlety here. Being farther from Earth’s centre makes time pass faster. Moving quickly makes time pass slower. So why do astronauts in low Earth orbit come back younger rather than older?

The answer is balance. At ISS altitude, the speed term wins. The weaker-gravity effect gives a small time gain, but the station’s orbital velocity produces a larger time loss. The net result is that the astronaut’s elapsed time is slightly shorter than the elapsed time measured by a clock on Earth.

At much higher orbits, the balance can change. GPS satellites, for example, are high enough that the gravitational speed-up is larger than the special-relativistic slowing from their motion. Their clocks would run faster than ground clocks if uncorrected. Low Earth orbit sits on the other side of that balance.

That distinction keeps the claim honest. Astronauts aboard the ISS, space shuttles, Soyuz flights and other low Earth orbit missions have lived through a small net jump into Earth’s future. The longer they stay, the larger the offset, but the scale remains tiny: microseconds per day, milliseconds over months, only fractions of a second even across the longest cumulative careers in orbit.

Still, the philosophical bite is larger than the number. Physics does not say time travel to the future is impossible. It says we are all doing it constantly, and that different routes through gravity and motion do not always add up to the same amount of time.

An astronaut floating above Earth is not outside time. They are taking a slightly different route through it. When they land, Earth has aged just a little more than they have.

Sources