The quantum physics of chronology
protection
Matt Visser
Physics Department, Washington University, Saint Louis, Missouri 63130-4899, USA.
2 April 2002; Additional references 17 April 2002; MJ)K-ed February 3, 2008
Abstract:
This is a brief survey of the current status of Stephen Hawking's "chronol-
ogy protection conjecture". That is: "Why does nature abhor a time
machine?" I'U discuss a few examples of spacetimes containing "time ma-
chines" (closed causal curves), the sorts of peculiarities that arise, and the
reactions of the physics community. While pointing out other possibilities,
this article concentrates on the possibility of "chronology protection" . As
Stephen puts it:
It seems that there is a Chronology Protection Agency which
prevents the appearance of closed timelike curves and so makes
the universe safe for historians.
To appear in: The future of theoretical physics and cosmology;
Proceedings of the conference held in honour of Stephen Hawking on the
occasion of his 60'th birthday. (Cambridge, 7-10 January 2002.)
E-mail: [email protected]
Homepage: http: / /www. physics. wusti .edu/~ visser
Archive: |gr-qc/0204022
Permanent address after 1 July 2002: School of Mathematics and Computer Science,
Victoria University, PO Box 600, Wellington, New Zealand. [email protected]
1
The quantum physics of chronology
protection
Simply put, chronology protection is the assertion that nature abhors a
time machine. In the words of Stephen Hawking |]|]:
It seems that there is a Chronology Protection Agency which
prevents the appearance of closed timelike curves and so makes
the universe safe for historians.
The idea of chronology protection gained considerable currency during
the 1990's when it became clear that traversable wormholes, which are
not too objectionable in their own right |2 Js], 4||, seem almost generically
to lead to the creation of time machines [iT^jQ §]• The key word here
is "seem". There are by now many technical discussions available in the
literature (well over 200 articles), and in the present chapter I will simply
give a pedagogical and discursive overview, while adding an extensive
bibliography for those interested in the technical details. First: a matter
of language, for all practical purposes the phrases "time machine" and
"closed timelike curve" (or the closely related "closed null curve" ) can be
used interchangeably.
Why is chronology protection even an issue?
Before embarking on a discussion of chronology and how it is believed to
be protected 0, |6|, 0] , it is useful to first ask why chronology even needs
to be protected. In Newtonian physics, and even in special relativity
or flat-space quantum field theory, notions of chronology and causality
are so fundamental that they are simply built into the theory ab initio.
Violation of normal chronology (for instance, an effect preceding its cause)
is so objectionable an occurrence that any such theory would immediately
be rejected as unphysical.
2
The quantum physics of chronology protection
3
Unfortunately, in general relativity one cannot simply assert that chron-
ology is preserved, and causality respected, without doing considerable ad-
ditional work. The essence of the problem lies in the fact that the Einstein
equations of general relativity are local equations, relating some aspects
of the spacetime curvature at a point to the presence of stress-energy at
that point. Additionally, one also has local chronology protection, inher-
ited from the fact that the spacetime is locally Minkowski (the Einstein
Equivalence Principle), and so "in the small" general relativity respects
all of the causality constraints of special relativity.
What general relativity does not do is to provide any natural way of
imposing global constraints on the spacetime — certainly the Einstein
equations provide no such nonlocal constraint. In cosmology this leads to
the observation that the global topology of space is not constrained by
the Einstein equations; spatial topology is an independent discrete vari-
able that has to be decided by observation. (And this requires additional
data over and above whatever is needed to decide the familiar k = +1,
k = 0, OT k = —1 question of the Friedmann-Robertson- Walker cosmolo-
gies Q.) Similarly, global temporal topology is not constrained by the
Einstein equations themselves, and additional physical principles need to
be brought into play to somehow deal with the possibility of nontrivial-
temporal topology.
Without imposing additional principles along these lines general rela-
tivity is completely infested with time machines (in the sense of closed
causal curves). Perhaps the earliest examples of this pathology are the
Van Stockum spacetimes [|lO| , but the example that has attracted consid-
erably more attention is Kurt Godel's peculiar cosmological solution [11 1.
These spacetimes are exact solutions of the Einstein equations, with
sources that (at least locally) look physically reasonable, which neverthe-
less possess serious global pathologies. If it were only a matter of dealing
with these two particular examples, physicists would not be too worried
— but similar behaviour occurs in many other geometries, for instance,
deep inside the Kerr solution. A complete list of standard but temporally
ill-behaved spacetimes is tedious to assemble, but at a minimum should
include:
1. Godel's cosmology
2. Van Stockum spacetimes |T^]/ Tipler cylinders |12]/
longitudinally spinning cosmic strings [Mj;
3. Kerr and Kerr-Newman geometries [13U ;
4. Gott's time machines [0];
5. Wheeler wormholes (spacetime foam) [^, 16, 17|;
4
The quantum physics of chronology protection
6. Morris-Thorne traversable wormholes [[
7. Alcubierre "warp drive" spacetimes |18]
The Wheeler wormholes are included based on theorems that localized
topology change implies either causal pathology or naked singularities; ei-
ther possibility is objectionable |19, 2^, The Morris-Thorne traversable
wormholes are included based on the observation that apparently trivial
manipulations of these otherwise not too objectional geometries seem to
almost generically lead to the development of closed timelike curves and
the destruction of normal chronology |5|, ^ . For the "warp drive" space-
times manipulations similar to those performed for traversable wormhole
spacetimes seem to lead inevitably to time travel. (Once one has effective
faster-than-light travel, whether via wormholes or warpdrives, the twin
pseudo-paradox of special relativity is converted into a true paradox, in
the sense of engendering various time travel paradoxes.)
Now in each of these particular cases you can at a pinch find some ex-
cuse for not being too concerned, but it's a different excuse in each case.
The matter sources for the Godel solution are quite reasonable, but the
observed universe simply does not have those features. The Van Stockum
time machines and their brethren require infinitely long cylindrical as-
semblages of matter rotating at improbable rates. Gott's time machines
have pathological and non-physical global behaviour [22, ES]. The Kerr
and Kerr-Newman pathologies are safely hidden behind the Cauchy hori-
zon [13 1, where one should not trust naive notions of maximal analytic
extension. (The inner event horizon is classically unstable.) The Wheeler
wormholes (spacetime foam) have never been detected, and at least some
authors now argue against the very existence of spacetime foam. The
energy condition violations implicit in traversable wormholes and warp
drive spacetimes do not seem to be qualitatively insurmountable prob-
lems [|2|, but do certainly give one pause [|2^. This multiplicity of
different excuses does rather make one worry just a little that something
deeper is going on; and that there is a more general underlying theme to
these issues of (global) chronology protection.
Paradoxes and responses.
Most physicists view time travel as being problematic, if not downright
repugnant. There are two broad classes of paradox generated by the
possibility of time travel, either one of which is disturbing:
1. Grandfather paradoxes: Caused by attempts to "change the past",
and so modify the conditions that lead to the very existence of the
entity that is trying to "modify the timestream" .
The quantum physics of chronology protection
5
2. Bootstrap paradoxes: Where an effect is its own cause.
Faced with the a priori plethora of geometries containing closed timelike
curves, with the risk of these two classes of logical paradox arising, the
physics community has developed at least four distinct reactions
1. Make radical alterations to our worldview to incorporate at least
some versions of chronology violation and "time travel" . (The "rad-
ical re-write" conjecture.) One version of the radical re-write con-
jecture uses non-Hausdorff manifolds to describe "train track" ge-
ometries where the same present has two or more futures (or two
or more pasts). A slightly different version uses the "many worlds"
interpretation of quantum mechanics to effectively permit switch-
ing from one history to another |25]. More radically one can even
contemplate multiple coexisting versions of the "present" .
2. Permit constrained versions of closed timelike curves — supple-
mented with a consistency condition that essentially prevents any
alteration of the past. (This is the essence of the Novikov con-
sistency conditions ^0 The consistency conditions are
sometimes summarized as "you can't change recorded history" [p9| .
The central idea is that there is a single unique timeline so that
even in the presence of closed timelike curves there are constraints
on the possibilities that can occur. In idealized circumstances these
consistency constraints can be derived from a least action principle.
More complicated situations seem to run afoul of the notion of "free
will" , though there is considerable doubt as to the meaning of "free
will" in the presence of time travel [^ ].
3. Appeal to quantum physics to intervene and provide a universal
mechanism for preventing the occurrence of closed timelike curves.
This, in a nutshell, is Stephen Hawking's "chronology protection"
option, the central theme of this chapter, which we shall develop in
considerable detail below.
4. Agree to not think about these issues until the experimental evi-
dence becomes overwhelming. (The "boring physics" conjecture.)
After all, what is the current experimental evidence? Assume global
hyperbolicity and cosmic censorship and be done with it. If, for in-
stance, one takes canonical gravity seriously as a fundamental the-
ory then there exists at least one universal foliation by complete
spacelike hyper surf aces. This automatically forbids closed timelike
curves at the kinematical level, before dynamics (classical or quan-
tum) comes into play. However, it should be noted that canonical
gravity interpreted in this strict sense has severe difficulties (for
6
The quantum physics of chronology protection
instance, in dealing with maximal analytic extensions of the Kerr
spacetime) .
Originally it was hoped that it would be possible to decide between these
options based on classical or at worst semiclassical physics — however
it it now becoming increasingly clear that the ultimate resolution of the
chronology protection issue will involve deep issues of principle at the very
foundations of the full theory of quantum gravity.
Elements of chronology protection.
Chronology protection is at one level an attempt at "having one's cake and
eating it too" — this in the sense that it provides a framework sufficiently
general to permit interesting and nontrivial topologies and geometries,
but seeks to keep the unpleasant side effects under control. Chronology
protection deals with the localized production and destruction of closed
timelike curves; the very essence of what we might like to think of as
"creating" a time machine.
(Cosmological time machines, in the sense of Godel, are best viewed
as an example of the GIGO principle; garbage in, garbage out. Just
because one has a formal solution to a set of differential equations does
not mean there is any physical validity to the resulting spacetime. A
differential equation without boundary conditions/ initial conditions has
little predictive power, and it is very easy to generate ill-posed problems.
Cosmological time machines are by definition intrinsically and equally sick
everywhere in the spacetime.)
In the case of a localized production of closed timelike curves the sit-
uation is more promising: the spacetime is then divided into regions of
normal causal behaviour and abnormal causal behaviour, with the bound-
ary that separates these regions referred to as the "chronology horizon".
It is the behaviour of quantum physics at and near this chronology horizon
that provides the basis for chronology protection.
Specifically, a point x is part of the chronology violating region if there
is a closed causal curve (closed timelike curve) or closed chronological
curve (closed null/ timelike curve) passing through x. The chronology
horizon is then defined as the boundary of the future of the chronology
violating region. (That is, the boundary of the region from which chronol-
ogy violating physics is visible.) This chronology horizon is by definition
a special type of Cauchy horizon. Under reasonably mild technical con-
ditions Hawking has argued that the chronology horizons appropriate to
locally constructed time machines should be compactly generated and
contain a "fountain"; essentially the first closed null curve to come into
existence as the time machine is formed
The quantum physics of chronology protection
7
A classical photon placed on this fountain will circulate around the
fountain infinitely many times; in effectively zero "elapsed" time. On
each circuit around the fountain there is generically a nontrivial holonomy
that changes the energy of the photon. For a past chronology horizon,
which expands as we move to the future (as defined by someone outside
the chronology violating region) this provides a boost, a net increase in
the photon energy for each circuit of the fountain. The photon energy
increases geometrically, reaching infinity in effectively zero time ||l|. On
each circuit
with the size of the energy boost being controlled by a loop integration
around the fountain involving the Newman-Penrose parameter e. (In
simple situations involving wormholes this holonomy is essentially the
Doppler shift factor due to relative motion of the wormhole mouths, but
when phrased in terms of / e it can be generalized to arbitrary chronology
horizons possessing a fountain.) The source of this energy must ultimately
be the spacetime geometry responsible for the chronology horizon, and
by extension, the stress-energy used to warp spacetime and set up the
fountain in the first place. If we now let the photon (and the gravitational
field it generates) back-react on the spacetime, its infinite energy will
presumably alter the spacetime geometry beyond all recognition.
Unfortunately this is a classical argument, appropriate to a classical
point particle following a precisely defined null curve. Will quantum
physics amplify or ameliorate this effect? Real photons are wave-packets
with a certain transverse size, and generically the same effect that leads
to the energy being boosted leads to the wave-packet being defocussed
— the geometry in a tubelike region surrounding the fountain acts as a
diverging lens Q.
With two competing effects, the question becomes which one wins? The
answer, "it depends". There are geometries for which the classical defo-
cussing effect overwhelms the boost effect, and the classical stress tensor
remains finite on the fountain. There are other geometries for which the
reverse holds true. But this certainly means that classical effects do not
provide a universal mechanism for eliminating all forms of closed causal
curves. Thus the search for a universal chronology protection mechanism
must then (at the very least) move to the semiclassical quantum realm.
E
E ^ e^" E
h
Semiclassical arguments
In semiclassical quantum gravity, one treats gravity as a classical exter-
nal field, but one quantizes everything else. So far, this is just curved
8
The quantum physics of chronology protection
space quantum field theory. But then one additionally demands that the
Einstein equations hold for the quantum expectation value of the stress-
energy tensor:
G^i/ = ST^GNewton (V'l?).!^ IV') •
Semiclassical quantum gravity seems [at first glance] to lead to a univer-
sally true statement to the effect that the renormalized expectation value
of the stress-energy tensor blows up at the chronology horizon. The idea
is based on the fact that in curved manifolds (modulo technical issues to
be discussed below) the two-point correlation function (Green function;
a measure of the mean square fiuctuations) of any quantum field is of
Hadamard form
G{x,y) =2^—^^ I (7 {x y) '^^"^^^'^^ In \a^{x, y) \ + Wj{x,y) | .
Here the sum runs over the distinct geodesies from x to y; the quantity
A^{x, y) denotes the Van Vleck determinant evaluated along the geodesic
7; the quantity (T-y(x, y) denotes Synge's "world function" (half the square
of the geodesic distance from x to y); and the two functions v^{x,y) and
zu^,{x,y) are smooth with finite limits as y ^ x. Provided the Green
function can be put into this Hadamard form, the expectation value of
the point split stress-energy tensor can be defined by a construction of
the type
{T^v{x,y,lG)) = D^^{x,y,-fo) G{x,y).
Here 70 denotes the trivial geodesic from xtoy (which collapses to a point
as 7/ — > X, this geodesic will be unique provided x and y are sufficiently
close to each other), while L'^iy(x, y, 70) is a rather complicated second-
order differential operator built up out of covariant derivatives at x and y.
The covariant derivatives at y are parallel transported back to x along the
geodesic 70 with the result that (r^j,(x, j/, 70)) is a tensor with respect to
coordinate changes at x, and a scalar with respect to coordinate changes
at y. One then defines the renormalized expectation value of the stress-
energy tensor by taking the limit y — > x and discarding the universal
divergent piece which arises from the contribution of the trivial geodesic
to the Green function. In other words, the renormalized Green function
is defined by
A (x y)^/^ f 1 1
G{x,y)R= ^ ^ \ <^ — - + Uj{x,y) In \a j{x, y)\ + Wj{x,y)\ ,
and the renormalized stress energy by
{T^v{x))r = lim D^uix,y,jo) GR{x,y).
y
The quantum physics of chronology protection
9
Other methods of regularizing and renormahzing the stress-energy could
be used, the results will qualitatively remain the same. The net result is
that
Here t^u{x) is a dimensionless tensor built up out of the metric and tan-
gent vectors to the geodesic 7, while the ■ ■ ■ denote subdominant contri-
butions. The key observation is that if any of the non-trivial geodesies
from X to itself are null (invariant length zero) , then there is an additional
infinity in the stress-energy over and above the universal local contribu-
tion that was removed by renormalization. (For a slightly different way
of doing things, one could just as easily choose to work with the effective
action |31| instead of the stress-energy; the conclusions are qualitatively
similar.)
In general these self-intersecting null geodesies define the A'^'th-polarized
hypersurfaces, where is a winding number which counts the number
of times the geodesic passes through the tubular region surrounding the
fountain. These polarized hypersurfaces lie inside the chronology horizon
and typically approach it as A/^ — > 00 |^, 0]. In particular, the fountain
is a nontrivial closed null geodesic, and this argument indicates that the
renormalized stress-energy tensor diverges at the fountain. But infinite
stress-energy implies, via the Einstein equations, infinite curvature. The
standard interpretation of this is (or rather, was) that once back-reaction
is taken into account the fountain (and ipso facto, the entire chronology
horizon) is destroyed by the (mean square) quantum fiuctuations. (You
do not need the stress-energy to diverge everywhere on the chronology
horizon; it is sufficient if it diverges at the fountain.)
The fiy in the ointment here is these same quantum fiuctuations. On the
one hand the quantum fiuctuations are responsible for the formal infinity
in the expectation value of the stress-energy at the fountain, on the other
hand: Does the back-reaction due to the expectation value of the stress-
energy tensor become large before the quantum fiuctuations in the metric
completely invalidate the manifold picture? (This very question led to
a spirited debate between Stephen Hawking and Kip Thorne j^, 0, with
disagreement on how to define the notion of "closeness" to the chronology
horizon.)
It is now generally accepted that typically the back reaction becomes
large before metric fiuctuations invalidate the manifold picture, but that
there are exceptional geometries where the back-reaction can be kept
arbitrarily small arbitrarily close to the chronology horizon. A particu-
lar example of this phenomenon is if you take a "ring configuration" of
wormholes, where each individual wormhole is nowhere near forming a
10
The quantum physics of chronology protection
chronology horizon, but the combination is just on the verge of violating
causality |32|. Then there is a closed spacelike geodesic which traverses
the entire ring of wormholes whose invariant length is becoming arbitrar-
ily small; but because the spacelike geodesic is traversing many wormhole
mouths (each of which acts as a defocussing lens) the Van Vleck determi-
nant can be made arbitrarily small in compensation.
That is: adopt the length of the shortest closed spacelike geodesic as a
diagnostic for how close the spacetime is to forming a time machine. Then
no matter how close one is to violating chronology, there are some geome-
tries for which the renormalized stress-energy tensor (and the quantum-
induced back reaction) can be made arbitrarily small. In a similar vein
there are a number of other special case examples (for example, toy mod-
els based on variants of the Grant and Misner spacetimes |33, 34, 35, ^)
for which the renormalized stress-energy remains finite all the way up to
the chronology horizon. The upshot of all this is that the search for a uni-
versal chronology protection mechanism must (at the very least) involve
issues deeper and more fundamental than the size of the quantum-induced
back reaction.
The failure of semiclassical gravity
The most mathematically precise and general statements known concern-
ing the nature of the pathology encountered at the chronology horizon are
encoded in the singularity theorems of Kay, Radzikowski, and Wald [37|.
In a highly technical article using micro- local analysis they demonstrated:
Theorem 1 There are points on the chronology horizon where the two-
point function is not of Hadamard form.
Because there are points where the two-point function is not of Hadamard
form, the entire process of defining a renormalized stress-energy tensor
breaks down at those points. That is:
Corollary 1 There are points on the chronology horizon where semiclas-
sical Einstein equations fail to hold.
Note that the semiclassical Einstein equations,
G^u = 8ttG Newton {T/mu) R,
fail for a subtle reason; they fail simply because at some points the RHS
fails to exist, not necessarily because the RHS is infinite. Now typically,
based on the explicit calculations of the last section, the renormalized
stress-energy does blow up on parts of the chronology horizon. The sig-
nificant new feature of the Kay-Radzikowski-Wald analysis is that even if
The quantum physics of chronology protection
11
the stress-energy remains finite as one approaches the chronology horizon,
there wih be points on the chronology horizon for which no meaningful
limit exists. (For a specific example, see [38|.)
The physical interpretation is that semiclassical quantum gravity fails
to hold (at some points) on the chronology horizon; a fact which can be
read in two possible ways:
1. If you assume that semiclassical quantum gravity is the fundamental
theory (at best a minority opinion, and there are good very reasons
for believing that this is not the case) , then by reductio ad ahsurdum
the chronology horizon must fail to form. Chronology is protected,
essentially by fiat.
2. If you are willing to entertain the possibility that semiclassical quan-
tum gravity is not the whole story (the majority opinion), then it
follows from the above that issues of chronology protection cannot
be settled at the semiclassical level. Chronology protection must
then be settled (one way or another) at the level of a full theory of
quantum gravity.
An attractive physical picture that captures the essence of the situation
is this: Sufficiently close to (but outside) the chronology violating region
there are extremely short self-intersecting spacelike geodesies. The length
of these geodesies can be used to develop an observer independent measure
of closeness to chronology violation. Indeed let
M{l) = {x 3 7 7^70 : cJ^(x,x) < —
2
Then A^(0) is one way of characterizing the chronology violating region,
while M.{L Planck) — A1(0) is an invariantly defined region just outside the
chronology violating region which is covered by extremely short spacelike
geodesies. In a tubelike region along any one of these geodesies the metric
can be put in the form
ds2 = dZ2 + g(fl)(/,xx)dxl dxi,
subject to the boundary condition
If we now Fourier decompose the metric in this tubelike region the bound-
ary conditions imply that p£ = nh/£. For i < Lpianck, high-momentum
trans-Planckian modes p£ > nfi/Lpianck = nEpianck/c are an unavoid-
able part of the analysis. That is, close enough to the chronology violat-
ing region one is intrinsically confronted with Planck scale physics; and
12
The quantum physics of chronology protection
the onset of Planck-scale physics can be invariantly characterized by the
length of short but nontrivial spacelike geodesies. In particular the rele-
vant Planck scale physics includes Planck scale fluctuations in the metric
— these fluctuations in the geometry of spacetime fuzz out the mani-
fold picture that is the essential backdrop of semiclassical gravity. Thus
quantum physics wins the day, and curved space quantum field theory is
simply not enough to complete the job.
Overall, this entire chain of development has led the community to a
conclusion diametrically opposed to the initial hopes of the early 1990's —
the hopes for a simple and universal classical or semiclassical mechanism
leading to chronology protection seem to be dashed, and the relativity
community is now faced with the daunting prospect of understanding full
quantum gravity just to place notions of global causality on a firm footing.
Where w^e stand
There is ample evidence that quantum field theory is a good description
of reality, and there is also ample evidence that general relativity (Ein-
stein gravity) is a good description of reality. From the obvious statement
that in our terrestrial environment gravity is well described by classical
general relativity, while condensed matter physics is well described by
quantum physics, it follows that semiclassical quantum gravity (curved
space quantum field theory with the Einstein equations coupled to the
quantum expectation value of the stress-energy) is a more than adequate
model over a wide range of situations. (No-one seriously doubts the ap-
plicability of semiclassical gravity to planets, stars, galaxies, or even to
cosmology itself once the universe has emerged from the Planck era.)
Nevertheless, there are apparently plausible situations in semiclassical
gravity that naively seem to lead to the onset of causality violation; and
attempts at protecting chronology inevitably lead one back to considera-
tions of full quantum gravity. The situation is somewhat reminiscent of
black hole physics where the infinite redshift at the black hole horizon is
often interpreted as a microscope that could potentially open a window
on the Planck regime |39, Similarly, in discussing chronology pro-
tection the region near the chronology horizon is subject to Planck scale
physics (believed to include Planck scale fluctuations in the geometry) so
that semiclassical gravity is not a "reliable" guide near the chronology
horizon [41, 42]. This opens a second window on Planck scale physics —
though the chances of experimentally building a time machine (or get-
ting close enough to forming a chronology horizon to actually see what
happens) must be viewed as even somewhat less likely than the chances
of experimentally building a general relativity black hole. (Black hole
analogues, such as acoustic dumb holes, are another story [E^, E3, ^.)
The quantum physics of chronology protection
13
One possible response, given that we will inevitably have to face full-
fledged quantum gravity, is to take chronology protection as being so basic
a property that we should use it as a guide in developing our theory of
quantum gravity:
1. As already mentioned, canonical gravity, whatever its limitations in
other areas, does automatically enforce chronology protection by its
very construction. Canonical quantum gravity certainly has serious
limitations, but it does at least provide a firm kinematic foundation.
2. Lorentzian lattice quantum gravity, as championed by Ambjorn and
Loll, also enforces chronology protection by construction [46, 47, 48
. It does so by only summing over a subset of Euclidean lattice
geometries, a subset that is compatible with a global Wick rota-
tion back to globally hyperbolic Lorentzian spacetime. At least in
low dimensionality, large low-curvature regions of spacetime emerge
(large compared to the Planck length, small sub-Planckian curva-
ture). These regions are suitable arenas for curved-space quantum
field theory. There are however many loose ends to work out —
such as the details of the emergence of the Einstein-Hilbert action
in the low-energy limit.
3. Quantum geometry (Ashtekar new variables) is still in a state where
details concerning the emergence of a "continuum limit" are far from
settled; in particular it is not yet in a position to say anything about
chronology protection one way or the other.
4. Brane models (nee string theory) are also not yet able to address
this issue. In the low-energy limit brane models are essentially a spe-
cial case of semiclassical quantum gravity, with the brane physics
enforcing a particular choice of low-energy quantum fields on space-
time. In this limit, brane models have nothing additional to say
beyond generic semiclassical gravity. In the high-energy limit where
the physics becomes "strongly stringy" the entire manifold picture
seems to lose its relevance, and there is as yet no reliable formula-
tion of the notion of causality in the string regime. One possibility
is to use string dualities: If the strongly-coupled string regime is
dual to a weakly-coupled regime where the manifold picture does
make sense, then you can at least begin to formulate local notions
of causality in the weakly coupled regime and then bootstrap them
back to the strongly-coupled regime via duality. But then you still
have to decide which class of geometries you will permit in the
weakly-coupled regime (globally hyperbolic? stably causal?), and
the overall situation is far from clear.
14
The quantum physics of chronology protection
So, is chronology protected? Despite a decade's work we do not know
for certain, but I think it fair to say that the bulk of physicists looking
at the issue believe that something along the lines envisaged by Stephen
in his "chronology protection conjecture" will ultimately save the day, as
Stephen puts it:
There is also strong experimental evidence in favour of the
conjecture — from the fact that we have not been invaded by
hordes of tourists from the future.
It seems to me that approaches based on Novikov's consistency condi-
tion 27, 28| are now somewhat in disfavour, largely on philosophical
rather than physical grounds. The same comment applies to attempts
at invoking the many-worlds interpretation of quantum physics, or other
ways of radially re-writing the foundations of physics. Still, despite their
relative unpopularity (or maybe, because of their relative unpopularity)
these more radical alternatives should also be kept in mind as exploration
continues. Unfortunately, if chronology protection is the answer, we will
have to wander deep into the guts of quantum gravity to know for certain.
References
[1] Hawking, S.W. (1992). The chronology protection conjecture. Phys. Rev.
D46, 603-611.
[2] Morris, M.S. and Thornc, K.S. (1988). Wormholcs in space-time and their
use for interstellar travel: A tool for teaching general relativity. Am. J.
Phys. 56, 395-412.
[3] Visser, M. (1989). Traversable wormholes from surgically modified
Schwarzschild space-times. Nucl. Phys. B328, 203-212.
[4] Visser, M. (1989). Traversable wormholes: Some simple examples. Phys.
Rev. D39, 3182-3184.
[5] Morris, M.S., Thorne, K.S., and Yurtsever, U. (1988). Wormholes, time
machines, and the weak energy condition. Phys. Rev. Lett. 61, 1446-1449.
[6] Thorne, K.S. (1992). Closed timelike curves. In GR13: Proceedings of the
13th Conference on General Relativity and Gravitation, eds. R. J. Gleiser,
C. N. Kozameh, and O. M. Moreschi, pp. 295-315 (Institute of Physics,
England).
[7] Kim, S.W. and Thorne, K.P. (1991). Do vacuum fluctuations prevent the
creation of closed timelike curves? Phys. Rev. D43, 3929-3947.
[8] Visser, M. (1995). Lorentzian wormholes: From Einstein to Hawking (AIP
Press, USA).
[9] Gott, J.R., III (1998). Topology and the universe. Class. Quant. Grav. 15,
2719-2731.
[10] van Stockum, W.J. (1937). Gravitational field of a distribution of particles
rotating about an axis of symmetry. Proc. R. Soc. Edin. 57, 135-154.
[11] Godel, K. (1949). An example of a new type of cosmological solutions of
Einstein's field equations of gravitation. Rev. Mod. Phys. 21, 447-450.
[12] Tipler, F.J. (1974). Rotating cylinders and the possibility of global causality
violation. Phys. Rev. D9, 2203-2206.
15
16 References
[13] Hawking, S.W. and Ellis, G.F.R. (1973). The Large Scale Structure of
Space-Time (Cambridge University Press, England).
[14] Gott, J.R., III (1991). Closed timelike curves produced by pairs of moving
cosmic strings: Exact solutions. Phys. Rev. Lett. 66, 1126-1129.
[15] Wheeler, J.A. (1955). Geons. Phys. Rev. 97, 511-536.
[16] Wheeler, J.A. (1957). On the nature of quantum geometrodynamics. Ann.
Phys. (NY) 2, 604-614.
[17] Wheeler, J.A. (1962). Geometrodynamics (Academic, USA).
[18] Alcubierre, M. (1994). The warp drive: hyper-fast travel within general
relativity. Class. Quant. Grav. 11, L73-L77. |gr-qc/0009013 .
[19] Tipler, F.J. (1976). Causality violation in asymptotically flat spacetime.
Phys. Rev. Lett. 37, 879-882.
[20] Tipler, F.J. (1977). Singularities and causality violation. Ann. Phys. (NY)
108, 1-36.
[21] Tipler, F.J. (1978). Energy conditions and spacetime singularities. Phys.
Rev. D17, 2521-2528.
[22] Deser, S., Jackiw, R., and 't Hooft, G. (1992). Physical cosmic strings do
not generate closed timelike curves. Phys. Rev. Lett. 68, 267-269.
[23] Deser, S. and Jackiw, R. (1992). Time travel? Comments Nucl. Part. Phys.
20, 337-354. iep-th/9206094
[24] Visser, M. and Barcelo, C. (1999). Energy conditions and their cosmological
implications. In Cosmo-99 , eds. U. Cotti, R. Jeanncrot, G. Senjanovic, and
A. Smirnov, pp. 98-112 (World Scientific). |gr-qc/0001099| .
[25] Deutsch, D. (1991). Quantum mechanics near closed timelike lines. Phys.
Rev. D44, 3197-3217.
[26] Novikov, I.D. (1992). Time machine and selfconsistent evolution in problems
with selfinteraction. Phys. Rev. D45, 1989-1994.
[27] Carlini, A., Frolov, V.P., Mensky, M.B., Novikov, I.D., and Soleng, H.H.
(1995). Time machines: The principle of selfconsistency as a consequence
of the principle of minimal action. Int. J. Mod. Phys. D4, 557-580. jr-qc/
9506087
[28] Carlini, A. and Novikov, I.D. (1996). Time machines and the principle of
self-consistency as a consequence of the principle of stationary action, ii:
The cauchy problem for a self-interacting relativistic particle. Int. J. Mod.
Phys. D5, 445-480. fer-qc/9607063
[29] Various authors, (1970-1990). Tales of the Legion of Super Heroes. Marvel
Comics.
[30] Heinlein, R.A. (1959). All you Zombies. In The unpleasant profession of
Jonathan Hoag (New English Library, USA).
[31] Cassidy, M.J. (1997). Divergences in the ef fective action for acausal space-
times. Glass. Quant. Grav. 14, 3031-3040. |gr-qc/9705075| .
References
17
Visser, M. (1997). Traversable wormholes: The Roman ring. Phys. Rev.
D55, 5212-5214. |gr-qc/9702"04| .
Grant, J.D.E. (19 93). Cosmic string s and chronology protection. Phys. Rev.
D47, 2388-2394. [hep-th/9209102
Krasnikov, S.V. (1996). On the quantum stability of the time machine.
Phys. Rev. D54, 7322-7327. |gr-qc/9508038| .
Sushkov, S.V. (1997). Chronology protection and quantized fields: Complex
automorphic scalar field in Misner space. Class. Quant. Grav. 14, 523-534.
|gr-qc/9509056 .
Tanaka, T. and Hiscock, W.A. (1994). Chronology protection and quantized
fields: Nonconformal and massive scalar fields in Misner space. Phys. Rev.
D49, 5240-5245.
Kay, B.S., Radzikowski, M.J., and Wald, R.M. (1997). Quantum field theory
on spacetimes with a compactly gener ated Cauchy horizon. Commun. Math.
Phys. 183, 533-556. |gr-qc/960301^ .
Cramer, C.R. and Kay, B.S. (1998). The thermal and two-particle stress-
energy must be ill-defined on the 2-d Misner space chronology horizon. Phys.
Rev. D57, 1052-1056. |gr-qc/9708"028[
Stephens, C.R., 't Hooft, C, and Whiting, B.F. (1994). Black hole
evaporation without information loss. Class. Quant. Grav. 11, 621-648.
|gr-qc/9310004
't Hooft, G. (1996). The scattering matrix approach for t he quantum blac k
hole: An overview. Int. J. Mod. Phys. All, 4623-4688. |gr-qc/9607022 .
Visser, M. (1997). The reliability horizon for semi-classical quantum gravity:
Metric fluctuation s are often more important than back- reaction. Phys.
Lett. B415, 8-14. |Kr-qc/970204l| .
Visser, M. (1997). The reliability horizon. In MG8: Proceedings of the
Eighth Marcel Grossmann Meeting on General Relativity, eds. T. Piran and
R. Ruffini, pp. 608-610. |gr-qc/971002C .
Unruh, W. (1981). Experimental black hole evaporation? Phys. Rev. Lett.
46, 1351-1354.
Garay, L.J., Anglin, J.R., Cirac, J. I., and ZoUer, P. (2 000). Black holes in
Bose-Einstein condensates. Phys. Rev. Lett. 85, 4643. [gr-qc/0002015 .
Barcelo, C, Liberati, S., and Visser, M. (2001). Towards the observation of
Hawking radiation in Bose-Einstein condensates, gr-qc/0110036
Ambjorn, J. and Loll, R. (1998). Non-perturbative Lorcntzian quan-
timr gravity, causality and topology change. Nucl. Phys. B536, 407-434.
liep-th/9805108
Ambjorn, J., Correia, J., Kristjansen, C, and Loll, R. (2000). On the
relation between Euclidean and Lorentzian 2d quantum gravity. Phys. Lett.
B475, 24-32. |hep-th/9912267|.
18
References
[48] Ambjorn, J., Jurkiewicz, J., and Loll, R. (2000). A non-perturbative
Lorentzian path integral for gravity. Phys. Rev. Lett. 85, 924-927. lep-th/
00020501.
49] Ambjorn, J., Jurkiewicz, J., Loll, R., and Vernizzi, G. (2001). Lorentzian
3d gravity with wormholes via matrix models. JHEP 09, 022. lep-th/
01060821.
WFeK2£ cmmp guide vl.02
Live Music Archive
Librivox Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland Museum of Art
Internet Arcade
Console Living Room
Open Library
American Libraries
TV News
Understanding 9/11