A Genuine Paradox
Let us draw the light cones for some typical events in the van Stockum dust, to see how their appearance (in our comoving cylindrical chart) depends on the radial coordinate:
As the figure shows, as, the cones become tangent to the coordinate plane, and we obtain a closed null curve (the red circle). Note that this is not a null geodesic.
As we move further outward, we can see that horizontal circles with larger radii are closed timelike curves. The paradoxical nature of these CTCs was apparently first pointed out by van Stockum: observers whose world lines form a closed timelike curve can apparently revisit or affect their own past. Even worse, there is apparently nothing to prevent such an observer from deciding, on his third lifetime, say, to stop accelerating, which would give him multiple biographies.
These closed timelike curves are not timelike geodesics, so these paradoxical observers must accelerate to experience these effects. Indeed, as we would expect, the required acceleration diverges as these timelike circles approach the null circles lying in the critical cylinder .
Closed timelike curves turn out to exist in many other exact solutions in general relativity, and their common appearance is one of the most troubling theoretical objections to this theory. However, very few physicists refuse to use general relativity at all on the basis of such objections; rather most take the pragmatic attitude that using general relativity makes sense whenever one can get away with it, because of the relative simplicity and well established reliability of this theory in many astrophysical situations. This is not unlike the fact that many physicists use Newtonian mechanics every day, even though they are well aware that Galilean kinematics has been "overthrown" by relativistic kinematics.
Read more about this topic: Van Stockum Dust
Famous quotes containing the words genuine and/or paradox:
“A happy people I call them still, whose peace and genuine morals have not been contaminated with European vices; and whose errors are only the errors of ignorance, and not the rooted depravity of a pretended civilization, and a spurious and mock Christianity.”
—J.G. (John Gabriel)
“The conclusion suggested by these arguments might be called the paradox of theorizing. It asserts that if the terms and the general principles of a scientific theory serve their purpose, i. e., if they establish the definite connections among observable phenomena, then they can be dispensed with since any chain of laws and interpretive statements establishing such a connection should then be replaceable by a law which directly links observational antecedents to observational consequents.”
—C.G. (Carl Gustav)