Wormholes & Time Machines (again)

If you want to know the answer to a tough question, ask the experts... Doing exactly that over at Physics Stackexchange. You can follow progress there.

No cigar

Not even close! But no surprise there.

The results of the FQXi Time Essay competition are now in and as expected the luminaries shone bright. Julian Barbour's essay won the (well deserved) first prize; Ellis and Rovelli and other recognisable names also scooped prizes but there was also recognition etc. for many other interesting submissions from researchers I was previously unfamiliar with (I particularly liked What Makes Time Special by Craig Callender)

The only downside here (well, I say the only downside... $$$ would have been handy!) is that I am still none the wiser about whether the issues I perceive with wormhole time machines are valid or not. That's actually a double-bummer really.

So... should you be a random relativist unexpectedly suckered in by a Google search for FQXi, Julian Barbour, etc. and have a few minutes to spare do feel free to disabuse me - I would be very grateful.

They do say it's the taking part that counts, but if no one can even tell you whether you completed the course...

Obviously I have unresolved issues.

[And to coin a neofranglaisism, a propos pantological science essays... "Le tat, c'est moi!"]

A bientot, Stuff Seekers!

What a fool!

Having heard that FQXi (The Foundational Questions Institute) was running a prize essay competition on the subject of "Time", and having previously mused on the issues I perceived with wormhole time machines (see here) I thought the competition would provide an opportunity to think the problem through properly...

So I did, and late yesterday submitted "Time. On. Essay. An."

And then I felt a bloody fool as I looked at the author list: top of the commented pile was an essay by Carlo Rovelli no less. I don't think I would have bothered if I had thought that essayists of such stature would pitch in (it's nice to think one might at least have chance).

Oh well, if you don't fail you're not stretching yourself, I thought. It's not the winning, it's the taking part, etc. etc. So I had a good laugh at myself and (sort of) forgot about.

But then I was checking the site to see when it actually appeared and out of curiosity started going through the other submissions (in chronological order). Now, whilst it has to be said that my submission is somewhat lacklustre, and showing clear signs of late editing (in pruning it to 5,000 words the meat in the sandwich became a bit thin) it is at least mediocre, middling, median...

Rovelli may be waaay up above me, but take a look at some of the others.

Average (but respectable) Stuff

Scribble, scribble, scribble...

17th October, 230,000 words (admittedly we've slowed down... only 555 words per day since the last announcement).

Yesterday was a bit of a wipeout on account of Patch Tuesday's various Windows (in my case Vista HP) and other updates (Office etc.) being applied Wednesday night - leading to catastrophic failure of special goodies I've written to add functionality to Word to help me with navigating it...

To be specific, the ActiveX killbits patch not only prevents vulnerable ActiveX controls from being used by Internet Explorer it does so (via the "killbit") by stopping anything from running them... in my case MS Word - the Office XP Web Component I had on a userform simple wasn't there, which also meant the VBA code fell over "Cannot compile module" because the code referenced a now non-existent object.

However, lest you think it has been all work and no play (oh what fun to have to rebuild and restore one's work PC?) maybe I should share the news that traversable intra-universe wormhole mouths can not be charged! Took me a while to work it out (think: Gauss/divergence theorem + lack of horizon = lack of inside/outside distinction for a surface surrounding a wormhole mouth: think of the two types of circles that go around or though the hole in the middle of a torus/doughnut - they don't divide the surface)... but then I found confirmation in a footnote on p1200 of Misner, Thorne, Wheeler's Gravitation, which was nice. Still don't see how they can have mass either, I mean, come on...

Also worth mentioning, just in passing, something that occurred to me over a nice Lamb Madras at Indigo last night (a line of thought prompted by discussion of a recent New Scientist article on why the mind encourages superstition) which is that according to Your's Truly's theory of mind two contrasting styles of meditation (defocussing (e.g Zen ) vs. e.g. focussing (e.g. Tibetan though e.g. chanting)) lead to two different (but of course, the same) states of non-being, which we may summarise as:











If you know what I'm taking about, you know what I mean; if you know what I mean, why aren't you laughing?

We are in a jolly mood, aren't we?

Enlightening Stuff, eh?

Wormholes, Warp Drives and Time Machines - Part III

[You have read the Disclaimer, haven't you?]

The assiduous reader (that's you, O Sister Mine) who has been following the theme of Wormholes, Warp Drives and Time Machines has of course read Parts I and II - everyone else may wish to catch up...

So, dear Sister, take nieces Scarlet & Em on your knee and read on... I'm sure they'll enjoy this!

The story so far: many who probably know better than I am claiming to, say that one can construct a time machine by moving one mouth of a wormhole at very high velocity relative to the other (the closer the velocity is to the speed of light the better if we want a significant time machine). Time dilation - as per Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity - will then cause a time difference to occur between the two ends, but because the two ends are linked this makes a time machine (see Part II for how this is supposed to work).

My naive objection to this is that a separation in time is in fact a separation in spacetime - and the key words here are in and spacetime. The implied rhetorical question is: can one apply things like the Lorentz transformations to spacetime itself rather than to the separations of things and events in it. To which the unequivocal (but possibly wrong) answer has to be: No!

But' it's time for a diversion. Let's get practical - another little experiment will help illustrate the concepts. For this you will need a lump of some malleable substance, such as dough (e.g. pizza dough - in which case, make plenty in anticipation of pat IV) ; some superglue, and a finger.

• Take lump of dough and make a hole in it, slightly larger than your chosen finger
  
  Look at it for a moment - you've got a torus, a thing with a hole in in it. Now, flatten and stretch it slightly to make a fat pancake - but don't close the hole (it's still a torus - they don't have to be doughnut shaped: anything with one hole in it is topologically a torus) and then imagine that the dough is spacetime.
  
  You can go from one side of the pancake to the other one of two ways: you can either avoid the hole and go to the edge and round, or you can go through the hole. The hole is our experimental wormhole because, if you happen to be closer to the hole than to the edge, the distance you need to travel to get to the "same point" on the other side is less if you go through the hole. Note however (for future reference) that whether you go around or through, if you keep going you can get back to where you started - and are still facing the same way.
  
  
• Now, apply superglue to your chosen finger in a narrow ring around the first joint
  
• Insert finger into the pre-pared hole and squeeze the dough onto the ring of superglue

You should now be superglued to the dough. And since the dough represents spacetime and the hole in the dough the wormhole, we can simulate moving the wormhole by moving our finger. Try it - gently.

As you move your finger, dough piles up against the forward edge of your finger and gets stretched everywhere else. If a real wormhole is going to move, it will do something similar - or we will have find a way to stop dough piling up in front and stretching thin behind.

The reason for saying that spacetime "piles up" or "stretches out" and that a moving wormhole has to deal with such things is that one cannot create and destroy spacetime - there's no such thing as "Cut and Paste" spacetime", no "delete" let alone "insert" (unless perhaps you are a theoretical cosmological topologist. Don't be shy in coming forward). However, one can stretch and squeeze space(time), thereby changing the separations between things, which, strangely is all that gravity is about really.

So a small digression is in order, and without reproducing and trying to explain the Einstein field equations... Oh what they hell, there are are, courtesy of Wikipedia (see Einstein Field Equations) - because it is one of the most beautiful equations in physics.


What this this says is this. The left hand side of the equation, the "G" thing, is The Einstein Tensor - it is a (nonlinear) function of the metric, which is that thing that tells us how bendy and twisty spacetime is at every point. The right hand side of the equation, the "T" thing, is the Stress-Energy Tensor, which describes the density and flux of energy due to everything at a point except gravity. So the bendiness and twistiness of space(time) is determined by the matter and energy in it, or as I believe John Wheeler so beautifully put it "Space tells matter how to move, matter tells space how to curve".

Without matter etc. spacetime would be flat, but put in some ordinary mass and it bends in just the right way to produce what we previously thought of as the mysterious force of gravity. The usual analogy for this is a bowling ball on a trampoline: the big heavy ball causes a dent towards which any peas, marbles, or other small round objects therefore move (don't overthink the analogy, it will just make your head hurt). A nice little animation from YouTube shows the Sun denting spacetime, earth circling around and the way that light also gets bent by the gravitational dent - until the sun "disappears", at which point, there being no "T" thing, all the curvature disappears...



The key point here is that without the "T" thing to keep spacetime bent and/or twisted it will flatten out, thus, returning finally to our wormhole, we need some T in the wormhole to squeeze stuff up on the leading edge and some effectively "anti-T" to stretch it out behind.

Now, I have previously drawn an analogy between this stretching and squeezing with that of the Alcubierre "warp drive", which also squeezes up the space in front (so you have less to travel across) and stretches it out behind (so that space overall doesn't get an overall pinch in it.

At that time and rather unfortunately for the eternal optimist, it occurred to me that the Alcubierre drive couldn't work, because I had assumed that the whole point of this Faster Than Light warp drive was that you could point somewhere, intone "Engage!", and then be off, and that therefore the warp bubble was somehow propagated from its initial position just like a wave. This clearly wouldn't work, I thought, because when the metric does change the effects propagate at the speed of light (speed of gravity = speed of light) and what would be the point of an "FTL" drive when you had to wait four years to sail across the four light years that had then been reduced to a mere, say, centifurlong.

And indeed it seems I was not the first to raise an eyebrow in Alcubierre's direction - but since they know better, it seems the experts never for a moment thought the metric change would be propagated... so they said it wouldn't work because you'd have to traverse the entire route in advance in order to deposit suitable amounts of T and anti-T along the way. It turns out that the Wikipedia article on the Alcubierre drive makes this point (see "Difficulties), quoting Krasnikov and Dr David Coule's work to the effect that "there's no warp drive without warp drive" (and thanks to DHC for providing a copy of his original paper).

Or, to spoil a rather nice line, if we do ever get any sort of warp drive we will only be able "To boldly go where at least one other has been before."

However, at least my intuition is not clearly leading me astray, so maybe the dénouement (when it arrives) will be worth the wait, though if I have not in fact drifted a long way off track the geodesics of Mr Stuff's idea space have clearly been severely bent bythe abnormal density and flux of... well, I suppose, Stuff, so I should probably let you digest this properly before going on...

Spacetime - Bendy, Twisty, Wavy Stuff

Rocketship Dean (Wormholes, Warp Drives and Time Machines - Part II)

In anticipation of the dénouement (what a lovely word!) of the Wormhole-Time Travel thread (see Part I here), I have to describe how one is supposed to construct a time-machine using a wormhole. You may wish to follow the instructions at home...

You will need:

• One Traversable Wormhole (preferably macroscopic) about 1m in length (distance between the wormhole mouths)
  
• One Human-rated rocket ship capable of v~c speed (with supplies and fuel and suitable shielding of course)
• One Wormhole Grapple (ah... yes... how's that work then? Dunno), to be attached to the rocket ship
  
• One set of Inertial Damp(en)ers - lest the pilot be squashed
  
• A willing friend - ideally one who likes travel, for which reason I have selected Dean as Pilot to the Stars (please bring me back a hat from Alpha Centauri...)
• [Yoghurt pots and sticky tape are not strictly necessary, but you never know...]

Instructions:

Ensure the Wormhole Grapple is working and grab one end of the wormhole. Wish Dean luck and launch towards Alpha Centauri at high acceleration so that he very rapidly achieves 0.999998c... At this speed, and assuming the turnaround is quick at the other end (and that he doesn't spend too long haggling for the hat) Dean will be back in what seems to be about a week by his "clock" (just enough time allow him to catch up on some report-writing...) while 8.6 years pass on Earth (but... he'll miss the deadline, won't he? Not necessarily... read on)

Yes, we see the effect of time dilation as we look out of the window at Rocket ship Dean's tail-light... it was blinking once a second before launch, now it is flashing only once every seven and a half minutes.

But wait! Dean's got the wormhole with him... let's take a peek through that! Now, the wormhole is travelling with Dean... there is no relative motion and so, according to most authorities, Dean does not appear slowed down by a factor of 450 when seen through the wormhole. That's not lethargy - it's just intense concentration!

Half way through day 3 Dean looks up and says "I'm here!", nips out, buys a hat, and sets off home again. Three and half days after that he lands. We can see through the wormhole that he is indeed back - but wait! Looking up into the sky in the general direction of Alpha Centauri we see a very, very slowly blinking light. He's still on his way there!

How can this be? Is he indeed the Kwisatz Haderach? No... he's in the future. If he should so wish though, he can step back through the wormhole and as far as friends, family and deadlines are concerned he has been away for only a week, rather than, disappearing without trace for 8.6 years (c.f. "A Quick Trip to Budapest to do some Scribbling")

Likewise, we can go the other way and step 8.6 years into the future (bring back info on the future, clean up on long term investments and the lottery etc....)

No, I'm not making this up (well, not all of it...) here's a respected Professor outlining the same thing [NB I offer this link as it's the only one I know of that has a nice story - the same underlying principles are outlined all over the place]

Well... if you thought quantum mechanics was confusing now you can try getting your head around time-travel and all the attendant paradoxes...

But wait! Is it true? Er... no... or at least I don't think so. The problems are these (and I'm actually neglecting most of the practicalities):

Firstly, relativistic effects - Special or General - apply to separations in spacetime; they do not, as far as I know apply to spacetime. In fact I can't see how they could meaningfully apply.

Secondly, the effects as described would appear to be asymmetrical and suggest that in multiply connected spacetime (that's spacetime with holes in it) most conservation laws go out the window (e.g. if Dean sends me a pencil through the wormhole what 4-momentum (energy +3-momentum) does it have???)

Thirdly, even if a wormhole can move, how does it?

...

Thirteenthly, I forgot to supply a loo for Rocketship Dean.

These and other points will be addressed in due course. Is there a way of restoring equivalence to our inertial frames even in multiply connected spacetime... perhaps - in which case, no time machine can be formed in this way.

Warped space, warped thinking... Paradoxical Stuff.

Wormholes, Warp Drives and Time Machines - Part I

Just a quickie, just putting a marker down, a public reminder to do this all better another time.

Don't get me wrong: I would love it if there were such things as traversable wormholes, faster-than-light travel and any way of getting the better of currency fluctuations (such as by going back 12 months and transferring all the money I didn't think I'd need then) but...

It's a big but, and unusually (for this type of casual blog-musing) it's predicated on the idea that Einstein was right... and the "but" in question is...

I don't think so.

Let's do the easy one first: Warp Drive - particularly the Alcubierre drive. The Alcubierre drive is a lovely idea, perfectly in keeping with the idea of a Warp Drive because it does exactly what it says on the tin, it warps space(time). In front, it squeezes it up, behind it stretches it out. But unlike the fictional drive of Zefram Cochrane it's "real" in the sense that it's not just a load of hand-waving and muttering - there's serious maths at work for the Alcubierre drive, which modifies spacetime distances by tinkering with the "metric" - that function of spacetime that says how far apart things are.

This so called metric-engineering is neat and, if one puts aside the "minor problems" ahem of the energy requirements, dealing with incoming photons etc. (apparently another metric tweak will deal with them though) and how one gets into or out of the "warp bubble", it is very, very straightforward: as many light years as you want in front get squeezed up into as little as you'd like, across which you can then wander at local sub-light speed and still arrive rather quicker than going through the "unsqueezed space".

My problem is this: how does the metric modification propagate? Surely it can't move forward faster than light? So, whilst you could bring Alpha Centuauri as near to your backyard as you might like (and then step across the picket fence in the twinkling of an eye) I can't help thinking it's going to take ~4 years to get there.

And on a practical note, what about all the Stuff between here and there? Pile it all up (not forgetting perhaps the Cosmic Microwave Background radiation in addition to bits of real, solid stuff - large and small) and I can't help wondering what it will do to metric on its own.

However, the basic issue - you can't exceed the speed of light in spacetime - remains.

The problems with Wormholes and Time-Machines are related... but that'll have to wait for Part Deux (but in a nutshell: how do you move a wormhole without squeezing and stretching space like the Alcubierre drive (there might be a way - with interesting consequences for time-machine (non) creation - give it a twist... Kerr Metric like), and how in the name of X can Lorentz transformations/boosts be applied to spacetime itself rather than separations within spacetime - i.e. how does time-dilation apply to a moving wormhole mouth? NOT!)

During the interval, if you can explain the fault in the reasoning re the Alcubierre drive above, and how metric modifications propagate FTL do let me know... it will save me making an ass of myself twice (or at least, one more time than I'm going to anyway).

Remember! Einstein was right! (and even if we improve on him, Special/General Relativity will always be suitable approximations for some things..., just as Newtonian gravity still is)

Boldly taking Stuff where no Stuff has gone before.

Enough!

Earth Devouring Black Hole "Pure Fiction"

Are you worried about the Large Hadron Collider? Are you worried that you aren't worried about it? Should you be worried?

Think about it. If The Large Hadron Collider Produced A Microscopic Black Hole, It Probably Wouldn't Matter at least so says UC Santa Barbara Physics Professor Steve Giddings and his co-author Michelangelo Mangano of... wait for it... the European Centre for Nuclear Research (CERN - it's French) - who are about to turn the LHC!

Do I detect a conflict of interest here? Well, do I?

The idea of particle colliders producing black holes that could devour the Earth might make a good film script but according Steve Giddings, it's just "pure fiction".

Well, They would say That, wouldn't They?

(Am I getting the hang of this conspiracy style thing?)

Junk Stuff (because I can't figure out how to finish the other post on Wormhole time machines, mostly because I haven't the faintest idea how to re-write the metric for a twisted wormhole in Kerr coordinates instead of the customary Schwarzschild coordinates...)