Time machines and rotating cylinders

DaveC426913
Gold Member
Messages
23,832
Reaction score
7,829
GR allows for the possibility of travel in time by the space-dragging effect of an infinitely long, dense, rotating cylinder.

Q: Why does the cylinder have to be infinitely long?
A: It doesn't, an extremely long cylinder will do - long enough to eliminate "edge effects".
Q: Why even extremely long? Are we talking dozens/thousands/millions of light years? Would one light year be too short a cylinder? Ten thousand miles?

My question is less about how long it needs to be and more about why it has to be so long? i.e. How the does vast length of the cylinder affect the um ... effect?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
DaveC426913 said:
GR allows for the possibility of travel in time by the space-dragging effect of an infinitely long, dense, rotating cylinder.

Q: Why does the cylinder have to be infinitely long?
A: It doesn't, an extremely long cylinder will do - long enough to eliminate "edge effects".

Not according to more recent results. It really does need to be an infinite cylinder. There's a theorem due to Hawking published well after Tippler's original paper on the "rotating cylinder" time machine that shows that compact geometries (which includes finite cylinders as any finite geometry will be compact) can't be time machines (generate closed timelike curves) unless they violate the weak energy condition (have parts that have negative mass).

More precisely:

This is Hawking's ``chronology protection'' result
(Phys. Rev. D46 (1992) 603), which shows that creation of
closed timelike curves from a compact region of spacetime
requires that the weak energy condition be violated.

My understanding is that Tippler's calculation that infinite rotating cylinders (which were easy to solve for mathematically) were time machines is correct, but the asumption that the finite solution also were time machines was not rigorously shown and is in fact incorrect.

See the thread on Mallet's time machine where this came up.

[add]
Note that the thread on Mallet's time machine is about Mallet's time machine, not Tippler's. The utility of the thread will be in providing some more discussion of the specific chronology protection result due to Hawking which shows that Tippler's time machine can't work if it's finite.

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=42834&highlight=time+machine+Mallet
 
Last edited:


A: The length of the cylinder is important because it needs to be long enough to eliminate any "edge effects" that could potentially disrupt the space-dragging effect. The exact length needed is not specified, but it would likely need to be at least several times longer than the diameter of the cylinder. This ensures that the cylinder is essentially a perfect, uniform shape, without any variations in density or rotation that could interfere with the space-dragging effect.

As for the specific length needed, it would depend on the specific parameters of the cylinder and the speed of rotation. A longer cylinder would likely require a slower rotation speed, while a shorter cylinder could potentially rotate faster. The key is to have a cylinder that is long enough to create a significant space-dragging effect, but not so long that it becomes impractical or impossible to construct.

In summary, the length of the cylinder is a crucial factor in creating a stable and effective space-dragging effect for time travel, but the exact length needed may vary depending on the specific parameters and limitations of the scenario.
 
Thread 'Can this experiment break Lorentz symmetry?'
1. The Big Idea: According to Einstein’s relativity, all motion is relative. You can’t tell if you’re moving at a constant velocity without looking outside. But what if there is a universal “rest frame” (like the old idea of the “ether”)? This experiment tries to find out by looking for tiny, directional differences in how objects move inside a sealed box. 2. How It Works: The Two-Stage Process Imagine a perfectly isolated spacecraft (our lab) moving through space at some unknown speed V...
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. The Relativator was sold by (as printed) Atomic Laboratories, Inc. 3086 Claremont Ave, Berkeley 5, California , which seems to be a division of Cenco Instruments (Central Scientific Company)... Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/relativator-circular-slide-rule-simulated-with-desmos/ by @robphy
Does the speed of light change in a gravitational field depending on whether the direction of travel is parallel to the field, or perpendicular to the field? And is it the same in both directions at each orientation? This question could be answered experimentally to some degree of accuracy. Experiment design: Place two identical clocks A and B on the circumference of a wheel at opposite ends of the diameter of length L. The wheel is positioned upright, i.e., perpendicular to the ground...

Similar threads

Back
Top