Time travel and cosmic strings

Hercule Poirot
Messages
31
Reaction score
1
In his book "the universe in a nutshell", stephen hawkings is discussing the possiblity of time travel to the past (ch. 5 How to protect the past). He introducted the concept of cosmic strings to explain that. would anyone here could explain this concept and it's relation to time travel?

Thanks,
 
Physics news on Phys.org
What cosmic strings exactly are I don't know, but the tension on them is huge and the energy is because of that. They are strings, so that means that their energy and mass are distributed along a line, apparently that does something to the space curvature opening possibilities if they were to slide along each other creating other types of energy that way (like heat). They are apparently predicted to having been caused by the big bang.

Cosmic strings are *very* theoretical, but they seem to be allowed to exist by quantummechanics and relativity. In everything that we've seen before (like all predicted particles for example) everything that was predicted by a (for now assumed) valid theory really exists.
So we might conclude that because they are allowed to exist, they must. Argument comes also from Hawking.
 
The relation to time travel is that it's been shown that a hypothetical dense, rotating cylinder of infinite length would allow a traveler moving near it to go backwards in time--google "van stokum cylinder" to find more info on this. But I don't think cosmic strings would actually be infinite in length.
 
I asked a question here, probably over 15 years ago on entanglement and I appreciated the thoughtful answers I received back then. The intervening years haven't made me any more knowledgeable in physics, so forgive my naïveté ! If a have a piece of paper in an area of high gravity, lets say near a black hole, and I draw a triangle on this paper and 'measure' the angles of the triangle, will they add to 180 degrees? How about if I'm looking at this paper outside of the (reasonable)...
Thread 'Relativity of simultaneity in actuality'
I’m attaching two figures from the book, Basic concepts in relativity and QT, by Resnick and Halliday. They are describing the relativity of simultaneity from a theoretical pov, which I understand. Basically, the lightning strikes at AA’ and BB’ can be deemed simultaneous either in frame S, in which case they will not be simultaneous in frame S’, and vice versa. Only in one of the frames are the two events simultaneous, but not in both, and this claim of simultaneity can be done by either of...
Back
Top