Is Chronology Protection Still Relevant in Modern Physics?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the relevance of Chronology Protection in modern physics, particularly in the context of time travel and its implications for causality and the second law of thermodynamics. Participants explore various theoretical perspectives and the implications of different models regarding time machines and paradoxes.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants question the current acceptance of Chronology Protection and the existence of no-go results for Thornian time machines, suggesting that energy conditions can be violated in quantum field theory (QFT).
  • There is a lack of discussion on the second law of thermodynamics in relation to causality, with some participants proposing that it may be relevant.
  • One participant argues that Novikov's principle is not artificial, suggesting that multivalued solutions should be discarded as they do not represent valid mathematical functions.
  • Another participant posits that the thermodynamic arrow of time could prevent paradoxes at the macroscopic level while allowing for time machines.
  • Concerns are raised about the implications of constraining initial conditions, with some participants suggesting that the notion of "free will" complicates the acceptance of such constraints.
  • There are mentions of speculative concepts such as indefinite energy magnification and hypercomputation in the context of time travel, which some participants find difficult to classify as physical.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the validity and implications of Novikov's principle, the relationship between thermodynamics and causality, and the acceptability of constraints on initial conditions. The discussion remains unresolved with multiple competing perspectives.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight the dependence on definitions and the implications of accepting or rejecting certain principles, such as free will and the nature of solutions in mathematical physics. There are unresolved mathematical arguments regarding the nature of solutions to differential equations in the context of time travel.

ErikZorkin
Messages
104
Reaction score
6
What is currently the common opinion on Chronology Protection manifested by Hawking almost 30 years ago?

There does not seem to be any fully accepted no-go result for Thornian time machines. Energy conditions can be violated in QFT, semi-classical results suffer from counter-examples, Novikov's and multi-world statements sound too artificial and only try to come around the real issue.

I also didn't see any discussion on the 2nd law of thermodynamics in the works by Visser etc. Does it somehow relate to the problem of causality though?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Demystifier said:
It also explains why the Novikov's principle is not artificial at all.

How exactly? You also say that the thermodynamic arrow of time prevents paradoxes on the macroscopic level. So, do you actually allow time machines, but forbid them to generate paradoxes a-la Novikov?
 
ErikZorkin said:
So, do you actually allow time machines, but forbid them to generate paradoxes a-la Novikov?
Yes.
 
Demystifier said:
Yes.

...a-and how is this not "artificial"?
 
ErikZorkin said:
...a-and how is this not "artificial"?
The Novikov's principle says that multivalued solutions should be discarded. One may think that it is artificial, but it is not. The multivalued solution is in fact the same as an inconsistent solution, which is best viewed as something that is not a solution at all. If you have a differential equation for a function ##f(t)##, then a map that gives two different values of ##f## for the same ##t## is, by definition, not a mathematical function. So by requiring that the solution of the differential equation must be a function, one automatically discards those multivalued "solutions".

The above was a mathematical argument, but physicists sometimes object that it constrains the initial conditions, which they find physically unacceptable. But why do they find it unacceptable? Because that contradicts the "fact" that humans have "free will" - the ability to choose any initial condition they like. But if one accepts that "free will" is just an illusion (which many physicists do accept), then the constraint on initial conditions is not longer a problem. Nature will choose only consistent solutions (because inconsistent ones are not solutions at all), while a human trapped in such a solution may have an illusion that the corresponding initial condition was "her own free choice".
 
Demystifier said:
The above was a mathematical argument, but physicists sometimes object that it constrains the initial conditions, which they find physically unacceptable.
I also heard time travel enabled such things as indefinite energy magnification, hypercomputation and stuff like that. These are hard to call physical
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
6K
Replies
24
Views
8K