Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Topology of closed timelike curves (CTC)

  1. Nov 26, 2007 #1
    For less than BH_h, deep in gravitational potential well, with very extreme curvature, might one have a future light cone tipping over sufficiently to become spacelike and then wrap around to join up (glued) to past light cone? This is like a closed timelike curve, which can not be shrunk to a point. "[URL [Broken] So it would have a torus like topology; very different from our future light cone, which is finite and bounded in timelike sense, and hence not closed. So also topologically, any CTC would seem quite different from topology of C_R for greater than and less than BH_h.

    also: 'The Kerr vacuum is unobjectionable and realistic (for black hole models) in the exterior regions, and unobjectionable but perhaps unrealistic (for black hole models) in the "shallow interior" regions, but as several commentators have mentioned, it is objectionable in the "deep interior" regions, since it there admits closed timelike curves (CTCs), as does the Goedel lambdadust. These CTCs are problematical.' C. Hillman 1-05-2007 'tipping'
    Last edited by a moderator: May 3, 2017
  2. jcsd
  3. Nov 27, 2007 #2

    Chris Hillman

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    Attempted translation: "Deep inside the event horizon of a black hole.."

    No, the whole point of the timelike/null/spacelike classification of vectors is that it applies everywhere everywhen; no timelike vector can ever be "boosted/rotated" by a Lorentz motion (applied at the level of a tangent space) into a null or spacelike vector. It follows that you have misunderstood what Hawking and Ellis mean by "tipping over". Look more closely at their figures! For example, in their discussion of the Goedel lambdadust, the "light cones in the large" (the null surface generated by all the future null geodesics issuing from an event) have surprising global structure, but near the event of origin, they always look like forward light cones in str. The "tipping" refers to appearance in a particular coordinate chart only. (Think of how Mercator versus polyconic maps of the Earth distort the continents, etc.)

    And in future, if you wish to attribute some quotation to me, please provide a link so that readers can not only verify the alleged attribution (I don't recall signing my name "C. Hillman" anywhere) but can also see the original context, which seems crucial if there is to be any chance of avoiding misunderstanding. If you don't know how to link to another website at PF, look for "URL Hyperlinking" in https://www.physicsforums.com/misc.php?do=bbcode [Broken]. Similarly for "internal linking" to other PF posts.

    Context: this is a subtle subject, and there is almost always context, and discussions of subtle issues like global structure can only be understood by those who have mastered elementary gtr, which requires mastering perhaps the most important idea in elementary str, the nature of light cones.

    Also, Wikipedia articles can be created (and edited) by absolutely anyone at any time, and the one you linked to illustrates, to my mind, some of the many reasons why this is Not A Good Idea if you want to provide to the world a free on-line high quality encyclopedia.
    Last edited by a moderator: May 3, 2017
  4. Nov 27, 2007 #3


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    A quick search shows zankaon was quoting post #40 from the thread "Light cones tipping over"--C. Hillman was not part of the quote, so I assume it was just zankaon's attempt to attribute the quote rather than a signature that you yourself had written. But I agree that instead of just providing a name and date it's always better to provide a link if you're quoting a statement from a discussion forum.
  5. Nov 27, 2007 #4

    Chris Hillman

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    Thanks, Jesse, I couldn't find it just now, but the quotation seems to be from my Post#40 from that thread, so indeed the context was complicated.

    So zankaon failed to quote the stuff I said right after the paragraph he quoted, the stuff which is actually relevant here! :grumpy:

    But enough of that! zankaon, can you reformulate your question using the above?
    Last edited: Nov 27, 2007
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook