Closed-Timelike-Curves

Reiku

Banned
Banned
In physics, when we consider a particle and its past, present and future path throughout the universe, we call its definite path a ‘’worldline.’’ A particle will always try to move in straight lines throughout spacetime, but because space and time are curved into each other, most of the time, they follow curved paths through space.
This is what we mean by a warped space, or distorted spacetime. We find that these distortions are in fact just gravity, or curved spacetime. And gravity is the presence of matter itself. Even light cannot escape the wrath of gravity at very strong levels, but usually, a tiny photon traveling in empty space will almost definitely travel in straight lines.
But there really isn’t just one straight line, or worldline for any particle. We find that according to Feynman’s Sum Over Histories, a particle actually has every possible path to its disposal – these path’s are of both times past and times to come.

We find that these paths have themselves a statistical element about them and will variably shape how a particle will end up in any state given upon measurement. Take a photon traveling from the past: It will take every known possible path, even those improbable paths through a black hole (but as you can imagine, the statistics for this are so vanishingly small, we can nearly neglect them, but Hawking shows that it is possible for allowing a particle to travel at superluminal speeds using the uncertainty principle), and upon arrival at Earth, we can measure the photon, and all the paths its could have taken, according to the wave function, suddenly collapses into a single probability!

For Feynman’s Sum Over History to apply to physics, one must use imaginary time, rather than the concept of real time. Imaginary time is the same thing as real space, whereas real time is the same thing as imaginary space. The two concepts are pivotal to understanding how we contemplate different ways to look at our universe at large, and even at small scales.
Granted, the concepts themselves are purely mathematical, but they play an enormous part in relativity and quantum mechanics. You need to first gather up all the possible path a particle can take, bundle them together so-to-say, and then we need to measure those statistics against real time, and the result is the real conditions of the particles history; but even those results have a slight statistical aura about them.

In the case of the universe at large and gravity, Feynman would need to have analyzed all possible histories of a curved spacetime, and this at large affects everything that has a worldline in this universe. There would indeed be a finite number of possible outcomes, but one would need to chose which outcome best fits this universe today.
Hawking reminds us, that if this is indeed the case, the class of curved spacetime that determines the universe today (including those spaces and times which are blown into unimaginable proportions, or singularities), the probabilities of such spaces cannot be determined by the theory. However, he says it is possible if we calculate them in some arbitrary way. Dr. Hawking is very cryptic this way, but what he means is that science cannot predict any history for the universe if there is a singular past. So any attempt to learn how a universe with a singularity would result, is really a disaster for science.

Now, since this study is about time and space at large, let’s consider CTC’s or ‘’Closed-Timelike-Curves.’’ This is a worldline describing a physical system which is ‘’closed’’. This means something physical in fact returns to original starting point. We call such movements ‘’sinusoidal’’.
The idea of CTC’s was in fact developed by Willem Jacob van Stockum in 1937 and later by the infamous Kurt Godel in 1949. There is indeed a lot of controversy over their existence, but if they do, it could revolutionize relativity including our ability to create machines capable of a global causal violation; in other words, a path that twists in space and moves through time.

Worldlines and of course Feynman’s Sum Over Histories is best described in terms of ‘’light cones’’, which is really a more specified term that is timelike in nature. It will probably be more recognized than the last two concepts. Light cones describe every possible future of a physical object in spacetime, given a current measurement during the present time. This can seem a bit strange, because not only does one deflate all possibilities of the past events to a single value upon measurement (the collapse of the wave function), but one can now calculate all possible path’s in the future in real time.
Because of the standard arrows of time, (there is something like several known, such as the Cosmological, Radiative and even Psychological Arrows), the light cones are always depicted to move forward in time. As explained earlier however, a particle doesn’t move constantly in a straight line. Therego it must also tilt into space, as it does through time in curved spacetime, so it is best to refer to these cones as timespace, or spacetime, depending on how one wished to see it. Because of this, one can have in special conditions, a particle which experiences a timespace and spacetime that is so heavily curved, it can return to place it began. Simple basic rotations through space and through time, which are conveniently called, ‘’closed-timelike-curves’’, so just think of a loop that twists in space and moves through time back into its original starting point.

Frank J. Tipler, Prof. of mathematics and physics at Tulane University in New Orleans, developed an ingenious idea involving such closed-timelike-curves. I have read his article… it’s a good read. He explains that classical relativity does in fact predict pathological behavior. The exact nature of the pathology, or, CTC’s, are however very debatable, since the predictive nature of relativity has itself many outcomes.
His design is quite old now, but it is still a probability in physics creation of time machines today. His design is to create a huge rapidly rotating cylinder (possibly in space – I assume), and the spacetime around the cylinder will be warped to such an extent, that even time itself becomes sinusoidally warped so that instead of flowing in the correct direction… that is forwards, it in fact varies in an oscillating manner. Of course, one might think that such a spacetime would rip a spacetime traveler apart, but we aren’t talking about black holes here. If this machine, entered carefully, could avoid being turned into spaghetti and experience a dilated time frame. Perhaps this is the time machine of the future?
 
Last edited:
Is Our Universe Retrocausal? - will be a paper i'll write tommorrow. In effect, my idea is that the big bang is in fact a retrocausual event, allowed via closed-timelike-lines.

I'll let you stew on it until i write it and post it tommorrow.
 
Paper 2/4

Is Our Universe Retrocausal?

There is something very fixed in the universe: This is the observer…
She observes the universe in all its glory, and there is a specific directionality to this phase. This is of course, the psychological arrow of time. This arrow allows the psyche to adapt to a certain flow within the universe… This flow is forward. Because the human is intrinsic to such properties, we find that in the Copenhagen Interpretation that time is actually relative to the observer… Indeed, it states that if the observer was not here, there would be no such thing as time!! We say the same thing about energy-matter and space, since according to relativity, all are deeply connected and somehow the same thing.
If things where going backwards, things would seem very strange indeed… According to Dr. Hawking, if time is reversed, then so must the entropy contained within the universe. This means, everything that has evolved into today’s present states, would suddenly begin to de-evolve, and the plate that fell onto the floor would suddenly reassemble on the table! Counterintuitive? Perhaps, but this what we should expect, since the entropy reverse on the microscopic scale would indeed drag even the components it makes ‘’macroscopic objects’’ to the their previous states…

Something more can be seen in this though. The human mind, according to my theory, and understanding of the Copenhagen Interpretation would not allow us to know that the plate had reassembled on the table. Why? Because one must assume that even ‘’secret knowledge,’’ or personal knowledge is also dragged along with the matter…
For those who believe that mind is bound by the matter of the brain, then mind too must experience the same flow of time, and same consequences. This means that personal knowledge that was increasing as time passed, now begins to decrease! So I propose, even though Hawking explains that if time went back and in result we would see the proverbial plate reassemble, we wouldn’t know! He doesn’t explain this. But it makes logical sense… since to the observer now, time is still flowing in the correct manner… In short, we wouldn’t know. He may have proclaimed this before though, but I do not recall him mentioning this in his book, ‘’A Brief History of Time.’’

So, what should we expect if time does move back? Should it move back at all??
According to the Omega Theory of Cosmological Evolution, everything will reach an end singularity. A singularity which halts all known forward laws of physics, and inexorably forces everything to move backwards; but this depends on a steady balance of matter against the ratio of spacetime…There are existing theories right now which currently goes against such a point, against such a symmetry in time, such as the known acceleration of the universe, which seems to be indicating that our universe is ‘’Open,’’ meaning it will continue forever to expand. If it does, this can lead to Armageddon visions such as a Big Freeze or even Big Rip.

However, such a symmetry in time leads to exciting proposals that makes us realize that in subtle ways, the end and the beginning are somehow the same thing. It is easier to understand this, by using Hawkings analogy that if the universe sprung from a singularity, it would end in a singularity… both are somehow points which oscillate in imaginary time.
Reversing time allows us to find these strange results predicted, and if we could watch a reversed time frame of the universe, we ask the question, ‘’would it look the same as it did going forward?’’

Take a jar of gas. Any gas, with about a billion, billion, billion atoms. As time moves forward, the atoms in the jar become more and more disordered, and more and more less like the original state they had evolved from. How long would we need to wait, until all of those atoms reached the same states as they begun? It’s very difficult say, but in the long run, it should take trillions of years… maybe even longer…

Now, this so far, has explained in very pragmatic terms what energy-matter is subjected to in this universe; a constant disorder which should never reach a state which it had begun, unless everything is suddenly reverted back to whence it came via an Omega Singularity, or a Big Crunch.
But what about this notion that the beginning is somehow very much like, if not the same as the end? How can one come to such a conceptualized view of the universe?
The answer turns out to be very dubious indeed. The answer might lye in closed- timelike-curves… In short, just to get a very quick picture of what is being said here, is that the beginning of the universe might be a state which eventually curves back onto itself so that that there is what appears to be, a superb intrical Gordian’s knot.

As explained earlier, a CTC (Closed-Timelike-Curves) are states of a physical system which twists through space and time, and ends up exactly where it began. Is this the nature of the universe? It begs the question.
Let us view the universe like an atom, as described by Hawkings principle of Quantum Cosmology… and then assume that this particle/universe reaches a state which is so heavily curved upon itself, it is forced to end up where it began… then it turns out that the end is in fact the beginning, and vice versa… (This idea could be related intimately to pulsating universe theory).

But something even more sinister can arise from all of this, I speculate. If the beginning is the end, and the end is the beginning, (as I believe some old wise religions and philosophies state), then there might be room for some retrocausality – but first, what is a retrocausality in physics?

It is when the effect precedes the cause… We postulate this from interpretations of general relativity, and some interpretations of quantum mechanics. In fact, Dr. Wolf reminds us that the uncertainty principle, which governs our inability to predict all that there is to be known at the very small scales of quarks and protino’s, that cause and effect breaks down!!! This is very true, and since we know that physics predicts this, we can say that retrocausality must happen everyday in our lives; we are not concerned with this strange action though, because we exist on levels which are not normally affected by such a principle.
 
Last edited:
I ill submit the third paper tomoz.

If anyone likes talking about physics, i should expect some reply at all?
 
Reiku---

I will give you the benefit of the doubt here, untill I feel that your work has left the realm of physics altogether.

There is something very fixed in the universe: This is the observer…
She observes the universe in all its glory, and there is a specific directionality to this phase. This is of course, the psychological arrow of time.

Specifically, why should there be a ``psychological'' arrow of time? Presumably, if there were no humans, or consciousness, there would still be a second law of thermodynamics. So why should we not understand the fact that we perceive time to travel in one direction as a simple consequence of the fact that we evolved in a universe where the second law applies?
 
Ben, are you equating increase in entropy to Eddington's "arrow of time"? It looks like, but there seems to be something fishy here.

As I recall Boltzmann's statistical treatment of the 2nd Law, one had rather say that, given arbitrary boundary conditions, the probability that the final state of a system will be "less organized" than it's initial state is overwhelmingly high. This tells us a) this probability is non-zero and b) gives no information about intermediate sates, whatever these boundary conditions are.

I can't convince myself that's what meant by the "arrow of time". Or have I got it all wrong?
 
Indeed, it states that if the observer was not here, there would be no such thing as time!! We say the same thing about energy-matter and space, since according to relativity, all are deeply connected and somehow the same thing.

I don't agree with this. Time is an intrinsic property of space-time. The only thing needed for time to exist is a time direction.

This is a big leap, and you must justify this.
 
ahhh

Steven Hawking first used the Time arrow analogy in his public lectures:
The Beginning of Time. {read the book } He also goes back to it in other lectures. Reiku you should REALLY mention stuff like that, it is easy to argue with YOU, not so easy to argue with Hawking. Huw Price did and it is still being debated to see who is right. {READ} Cosmology, time's arrow, and that old double standard, by Huw Price



closed time-like curves DO occur in in microparticles

The methods of the quantum theory of computation are used to analyze the physics of closed time-like lines. This is dominated, even at the macroscopic level, by quantum mechanics. In classical physics the existence of such lines in a space/time imposes "paradoxical" constraints on the state of matter in their past and also provides means for knowledge to be created in ways that conflict with the principles of the philosophy of science. In quantum mechanics the first of these pathologies does not occur. The second is mitigated, and may be avoidable without such space/times being ruled out. Several novel and distinctive (but non paradoxical) quantum-mechanical effects occur on and near closed time-like lines, including violations of the correspondence principle and of unitarian. It becomes possible to "clone" quantum systems and to measure the state of a quantum system. A new experimental test of the Everett interpretation against all others becomes possible. Consideration of these and other effects sheds light on the nature of quantum mechanics.

Quantum mechanics near closed time-like lines

David Deutsch
Oxford University Mathematical Institute, 24-29 St. Giles, Oxford OX1 3LB, England

So unless I am understanding this wrong, Time/Space is observing Time-like curves all the time, at the smallest scales. That being the case, as I see it the laws of nature { not man } show that this happens at the core of the expression of reality. The thought being that the smaller you go into the make up of "everything" the closer you get to what it really is. { not how WE observe the little we CAN see }

A particle traveling faster then light is said to be traveling BACK in time so who is to say what direction is the "normal" flow of time to begin with?
 
A particle traveling faster then light is said to be traveling BACK in time so who is to say what direction is the "normal" flow of time to begin with?

Well, there certainly is a notion of arrow of time macroscopically, which is what Reiku is referring to, I think. Microscopically, I have much less intuition for what arrow of time means. But the fact that their is a time direction is in no way dependant on the fact that there are observers or matter or anything.

And particles which travel faster than light (except tachyons) are not observable. Their effects tend to cancel out---they are called ``virtual''. It is (kind of) easy to show that their effects are not measurable.

Their are most likely Planck-scale effects which cause closed timelike curved to form momentarily and then disappear, with a time scale on the order of the planck time. This is expected from general quantum gravity arguments.
 
No... Ben if you removethis thread from here, i will not contribute any more science.

First, all the Copenhagenists, which far outweigh any of the other members of any other interpretation of physics, states that the observer collapses the wave function, and that means to make something real... so without an observer, according to this particular interpretation, matter is intrinsic to observation. Without an observer, matter is said to exist in a ghost of probability.

''Well, there certainly is a notion of arrow of time macroscopically, which is what Reiku is referring to, I think.''

Not at all. Granted, the entropy on microscopic levels actually give rise to a directionality in macroscopic objects. This cannot be denied.

As for the psychological arrow of time, it is intrinsic to understanding the observer effect, and how time has any focus to one direction. One might even say it is one of the most important arrows known.

''And particles which travel faster than light (except tachyons) are not observable. Their effects tend to cancel out---they are called ``virtual''. It is (kind of) easy to show that their effects are not measurable.''

See... this is what i don't get about you... I make one mention of Hawking demonstrating that a virtual [particle] can travel faster than light for a very short time... you ignore everything else i have mentioned... in fact, do you not see why i mentioned this at all? I was being thorough in the work.

Now seriously Ben, this is pure quantum mechanics. Cut me some slack. A lot please.
 
Ben, are you equating increase in entropy to Eddington's "arrow of time"? It looks like, but there seems to be something fishy here.

As I recall Boltzmann's statistical treatment of the 2nd Law, one had rather say that, given arbitrary boundary conditions, the probability that the final state of a system will be "less organized" than it's initial state is overwhelmingly high. This tells us a) this probability is non-zero and b) gives no information about intermediate sates, whatever these boundary conditions are.

I can't convince myself that's what meant by the "arrow of time". Or have I got it all wrong?

I always get myself into trouble when I talk about these things.

But, take a star forming. That happens regardless of wether there are people watching it, right?

I understood Reiku's comments to be that conciousness was somehow tied to the arrow of time, and that's obviously not right.
 
It is in Copenhagen. There are actually several arrows Ben, and if conscioness isn't linked to the psychological arrow, please tell me why. Please don't let any illogical answer fly in the face of everything i have learned.

[Edit] please don't spam this thread. You have done it with each and every thread i have ever made here. If you do, i will have to resort to a complaint. I don't want to do that.
 
First, all the Copenhagenists, which far outweigh any of the other members of any other interpretation of physics, states that the observer collapses the wave function, and that means to make something real... so without an observer, according to this particular interpretation, matter is intrinsic to observation. Without an observer, matter is said to exist in a ghost of probability.

But there is always some ambiguity about the definition of ``observer''. ``Observer'' doesn't necessarily mean the same thing as ``consiousness''.

As for the psychological arrow of time, it is intrinsic to understanding the observer effect, and how time has any focus to one direction. One might even say it is one of the most important arrows known

Well, words like ``psychological'' have no meanings if there are no intelligent observers in the universe. And clearly there is still an arrow of time if this is the case. So I don't know how the ``psychological arrow of time'' is so important.

See... this is what i don't get about you... I make one mention of Hawking demonstrating that a virtual [particle] can travel faster than light for a very short time... you ignore everything else i have mentioned... in fact, do you not see why i mentioned this at all? I was being thorough in the work.

Reiku---your work is never thourough. You are making a bunch of claims which are confusing me (which is, after all, not that hard to do), and you are refusing to explain yourself.
 
It is in Copenhagen. There are actually several arrows Ben, and is conscioness isn't linked to the psychological arrow, please tell me why. Please don't let any illogical answer fly in the face of everything i have learned.

There is only one arrow of time that I have ever heard of, and it doesn't have anything to do with conciousness.
 
You could start a census here arguing that thing evolve normally as we understand them Ben without an observer - but then you would need to be ignorant of the principle of collapse and Copenhagen. I am a Copenhagenist.
 
Start off then Ben, with the Radiative Arrow, then the Cosmological Arrow, then work your way through to the Psychological Arrow. You'll find them all interesting.
 
I have made this thorough. Stop spamming my work Ben. I mean it.

The Psychological Arrow is the perception of the flow of time as we know it from active consciousness.
 
But you have defined ``observer'' in a very specific way. Your definition implies that there would be no ``observation'' if there were no intelligence to ``observe'' it.

Do you disagree?
 
Dr. Wolf

''Space is a physical realm which requires consciousness to allow it to have any definate form..''

''In fact, we learn that somehow, if there was no observer, time would also disappear.''

''We find in special relativity, that time is relative not only to motion, but an observer.''
 
''Space is a physical realm which requires consciousness to allow it to have any definate form..''

Simply not true. One can find perfectly happy solutions to Einstein's equations without any matter---anti deSitter and deSitter spaces, actually. If there is no matter, then there is no observer. But both dS and AdS are perfectly good solutions to Einstein's equations.

The contradiction is how you've defined observer.
 
Back
Top