38 views

Uploaded by Ng Xin Zhao

One of the startling features of the theory of General Relativity is that it permits the
existence of Closed Timelike Curves (CTCs) in special scenarios; these curves allow
time travel. Many paradoxical situations can arise due to causality violation when
time travel is allowed. Consequently, it becomes important to question, whether or
not these curves can exist logically (according to I. D. Novikov's denition), as it
may help us in verifying the possible existence of time travel. The central theme
of our project is to analyze Novikov's hypothesis in the van Stockum Spacetime.
Firstly, the trajectories of the CTCs were determined using numerical integration of
the equations of motion, following which the test of self interaction was performed
(by considering the collision of a billiard ball with its past self). It was found that the
local causality is coherent with global causality, after collisions involving a particle
traversing a Closed Timelike Geodesic (which is a specic type of a CTC); indicating
that the closed timelike geodesics are self consistent. Hence we conclude that closed
timelike geodesics can exist logically, consequently allowing room for time travel to
be possible in curved space-time.

save

You are on page 1of 60

Sustaining Consistency in Causal Cycles of Time

AUTHORS: Han Weiding Jani Hariom Kirit Ng Xin Zhao

STUDENT MENTORS: Tran Chieu Minh Lim Yen Kheng Thong May Han STAFF MENTOR: A/Prof. Edward Teo

November 2, 2010

Abstract One of the startling features of the theory of General Relativity is that it permits the existence of Closed Timelike Curves (CTCs) in special scenarios; these curves allow time travel. Many paradoxical situations can arise due to causality violation when time travel is allowed. Consequently, it becomes important to question, whether or not these curves can exist logically (according to I. D. Novikov’s deﬁnition), as it may help us in verifying the possible existence of time travel. The central theme of our project is to analyze Novikov’s hypothesis in the van Stockum Spacetime. Firstly, the trajectories of the CTCs were determined using numerical integration of the equations of motion, following which the test of self interaction was performed (by considering the collision of a billiard ball with its past self). It was found that the local causality is coherent with global causality, after collisions involving a particle traversing a Closed Timelike Geodesic (which is a speciﬁc type of a CTC); indicating that the closed timelike geodesics are self consistent. Hence we conclude that closed timelike geodesics can exist logically, consequently allowing room for time travel to be possible in curved space-time.

To, Those who believe in the existence of Time Travel...

1

Contents

1 Introduction 2 An Overview 2.1 2.2 Self Consistency and the Billiard Ball Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . The van Stockum Universe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 6 6 7 11

3 Closed Timelike Geodesics 3.1 3.2

The Equations of motion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Trajectories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 3.2.1 3.2.2 The Simple Circles and the Helices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 The Fancy Circles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

3.3

Algorithm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 3.3.1 3.3.2 Runge Kutta Method - Timelike and Geodesic . . . . . . . . . 16 Graph Analysis - Closure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

3.4

Estimation and Error Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 3.4.1 3.4.2 Theoretical Error . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Program Error . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 24

4 Self Consistency 4.1 4.2

Smooth Curves . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 Non-Smooth Curves . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 4.2.1 4.2.2 Case A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Case B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

4.3

Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 31

5 Conclusion

2

3 6 Future Work 7 Acknowledgements A The Four Momentum and the Relationship between E and Φ B C codes 32 33 34 36

B.1 The main C code . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 B.2 The graphical method C code . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 B.3 The code to ﬁnd the Non-smooth Fancy Circles . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 B.4 Codes to ﬁnd Simple Circle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 C Other codes 55

C.1 Matlab Codes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 C.1.1 Curve Generator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 C.1.2 Graphical Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 C.2 Mathematica codes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

Chapter 1 Introduction

If time travel were possible, we’d be inundated with tourists from the future. —– Stephen Hawking Time travel, a counter intuitive concept in itself, is forbidden for particles with mass in the realm of Newtonian and Special Relativistic physics, as the former assumes an absolute view of time and the latter demands that an objects travel under the speed of light. However, on the invocation of the theory of General Relativity, it is found that time travel becomes admissible. The transition from Special to General Relativity replaces the need for superluminal travel with a need for special curvature in the spacetime geometry. The latter unlike the former is theoretically achievable, as curvature of spacetime can be produced by having a ‘decently’ huge gravitating body. The physical realisation of time travel happens when an object travels on a path known as a closed timelike curve (hence forth referred as CTC). As the name suggests, these curves satisfy the property of being ﬁrstly timelike, indicating that they are traversable by objects with mass, and secondly closed in space and time. This closure results in backward time travel. Furthermore, it must be noted that existence of time travel in General Relativity (GR) does not violate Special Relativity (SR) in any sense, because at the local scale GR reduces to SR. The most famous curved spacetimes in which time travel is allowed, are external Kerr Black Holes, Wormholes, Cosmic Strings, G¨del [2] and the van Stockum universe [7]. o

4

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION

5

In general, many physicists claim that the existence of CTCs is pathological, as the introduction of time travel brings about many paradoxes and it disturbs our understanding of causality. Furthermore, it is sometimes alleged that due to the existence of time travel in GR, GR shouldn’t be trusted very much. It therefore becomes crucial to question whether or not CTCs can exist; and one of the ways to do this is to test if CTCs can exist ‘logically’. This test will based upon whether there exist any consistent solutions for a particular interaction, involving an object which is time travelling. In our work we, aiming to ‘resolve’ the paradoxes revolving around time travel, try to check the logical existence of CTCs. This is done by studying the collision of a ball with its past self 1 . If at least one case, for a CTC, is found such that the solution of a collision is self consistent, it can be said that there is no obvious contradiction in the logical existence of that CTC2 . The central idea of our work, derives its inspiration from the famous Billiard Ball Problem [1]. In the billiard ball problem, newtonian self collisions of a billiard ball are considered; where the authors use Wormholes as the time machines. In contrast in our work we shall consider relativistic collisions, using the van Stockum spacetime as the background universe. This spacetime is of particular interest, as it contains closed timelike geodesics, unlike the G¨del universe. o In Chapter 2, the principle of self-consistency and van Stockum universe are explored. The trajectories of the closed timelike geodesics are needed to study the self consistency problem, thus Chapter 3 discusses the equations of motion and presents some methods by which the closed timelike geodesics can be determined. In Chapter 4, the test of self consistency is performed and a discussion on the logical existence of time travel is given. Finally the conclusion and possible future works are presented.

1 2

Which is similar to a person going back in time and killing oneself. This argument, in general, can be applied to all CTCs as they diﬀer only in their parameters.

Chapter 2 An Overview

The notion that one version of time travel is more accurate than another is ridiculous - except to a physicist. —– Dave Goldberg This section is aimed at shedding light on the self consistency principle and some of the previous work done in the van Stockum spacetime.

2.1

Self Consistency and the Billiard Ball Problem

Time travel is all very nice and smooth, until causality violation issues are brought about. Famous time travel paradoxes from the science ﬁction stories are the problems that threaten the logicality of time travel. One story goes that a time traveller goes back in time and kills his younger self. Consequently, the younger self would not be able grow up and time travel; but if he did not time travel, then there is no reason why the younger self could not have grown up and done time travelling. If he could have time travelled, then he could have gone killed his younger self, and so on. So, was the younger self ‘killed’ ? Or more importantly, did the person ever travel back in time? These questions cannot be answered as there is a paradoxical loop in the story. Many physicists and philosophers exploit this argument and declare that this paradoxical behaviour of time travel shows that it is absurd and therefore, impossible. 6

CHAPTER 2. AN OVERVIEW

7

In the above problem, although causality holds in the local chain of events, it does not globally. Therefore the problem fundamentally arises due to this inconsistency between the local and the global picture of the universe. With an aim to ‘resolve’ this problem, six theoretical physicists [1] in 1990 came up with the self consistency principle. The principle claims that “the only solutions to the laws of physics that can occur locally in the Universe, are those which are globally self consistent”. One of the authors - Novikov [4], argues that if there is a set of conditions (on a CTC) resulting in an inconsistency, it is always possible to ﬁnd some conditions that give a self consistent solution. By assuming the self consistency principle, he adds that nature will abhor the conditions that produce inconsistencies. Hence, events on a CTC are guaranteed to be self consistent, therefore making it possible to claim that CTCs can exist logically. Here logical existence is deﬁned in the following way: If at least one self consistent outcome for an interaction occurring on a curve can be found, it can be said that there is no obvious contradiction against its logical existence. Such a curve is deﬁned to be logically allowable. Taking inspiration from the billiard problem we shall try to study the selfcollision of a billiard ball in the van Stockum universe. Moreover, we shall try to see whether Novikov’s claim holds in the van Stockum spacetime. It should be stressed that the content of our work is original because it replaces the ‘ironical’ non-relativistic collisions in Wormholes (in the Billiard Ball paper, [1]), with more ‘realistic’ collisions in van Stockum universe with a relativistic treatment. In order to work out the collision problem, the equations of motion (EOM) for a particle on CTCs have to be found. Thus, the ﬁrst part of this paper shall deal with a study of the equations and properties of CTCs in the van Stockum spacetime. Eventually when the curves have been obtained, we shall turn to the self collision problem and see what results ensue.

2.2

The van Stockum Universe

The van Stockum spacetime [7], named after its discoverer Willem Jacob van Stockum , was rediscovered in 1937, independent of an earlier discovery by Cornelius Lanc-

CHAPTER 2. AN OVERVIEW

8

zos in 1924. It is the ﬁrst solution to the Einstein Field Equations that permits CTCs and therefore time travel. The universe consists of an inﬁnitely long, massive cylinder (made of dust particles) which is rotating about its longitudinal axis. Due to the rotation of the cylinder, the spacetime curves in a way such that the light cones start tilting. As one approaches a critical distance the light cones tip into the domain of ‘negative’ time (Refer to ﬁgure 2.1.). One can possibly follow a path which goes into the ‘past’ (at non-luminal speeds), which eventually comes back to the ‘present’1 . Such curves are called closed timelike curves, more speciﬁcally, if the above mentioned curves do not require the traveller to accelerate, they are called closed timelike geodesics (CTGs). As shown by B. R. Steadman [5], CTGs actually do exist in van Stockum spacetime (our work shall principally focus on CTGs). The following description of the van Stockum spacetime follows from Tipler’s work [6]. The description of the geometry in the van Stockum spacetime is generally done using Weyl-Papapetrou form (which involves cylindrical polar coordinates along with time). The metric of the spacetime, in a frame of reference which is rotating at the same angular velocity as that of the cylinder, using natural units G = c = 1 is then given by:

ds2 = −F (r) dt2 + H(r) (dr2 + dz 2 ) + L(r) dφ2 + 2M (r) dφ dt,

(2.1)

where t is the time, r the radius, φ the angle, and z the distance along the axial coordinate (−∞ < t < ∞, 0 ≤ r < ∞, 0 ≤ φ ≤ 2π, −∞ < z < ∞) with G = c = 1. If a is the angular velocity and R the radius of the cylinder, the whole universe can be divided into two domains, one inside the cylinder (r < R) and the other outside it (r > R). The exterior solution can further be divided into three categories, when 0 < aR < 1/2, aR = 1/2 and 1/2 < aR < 1 (the upper limit is 1 because it is equal to the speed of light in our earlier deﬁnition). It was seen that the CTCs exist only in the third case. The functions H, L, M , F in this region assume the following form:

1

The reason why past and present have been put in apostrophes is because such clasiﬁcations

hold very little meaning globally when time travel is permitted.

CHAPTER 2. AN OVERVIEW

9

F (r) =

**r sin( − log(r/R) tan ) , R sin
**

2 R2

L(r) =

rR sin(3 + log(r/R) tan ) , (2.2) sin + sin 3 r sin( + log(r/R) tan ) , (2.3) sin 2

H(r) = exp(−a2 R2 )(r/R)−2a where in

,

M (r) =

tan = (4a2 R2 − 1)1/2 , 1/2 < aR < 1. The coordinate condition LF + M 2 = r2 is present. A justiﬁcation for the above form of the metric can be given here. The functions H, L, M , F play a role in determining the curvature of the universe. The elements of the metric tensor are functions of r alone. This ﬁrstly ensures that the curvature of the spacetime is modiﬁed only with change in r; secondly, there shall be constants of motion along the other three coordinates (due to their homogeneity). The time t and the angular direction φ are coupled with each other, this generates a rotational eﬀect as the angle would change with time. Moreover this combination results in ‘frame dragging’ eﬀects which are suitable enough for generating the CTCs. In our analysis the z coordinate shall be suppressed for reasons that shall become evident later. The energy momentum tensor is given by pressure free ﬂuid, which is nothing but dust particles. The van Stockum spacetime is shown in ﬁgure 2.1. The characterization of the curves is done according to the following manner, if the value of the metric is positive, zero or negative, then the curve corresponding to those set of points by deﬁnition is spacelike, null or timelike2 respectively. In order to visualize a simple examples of a CTC, let us consider a circular path in the spacetime; this curve will satisfy dr = 0, dt = 0 and dz = 0 with dφ = 0, making the metric (2.1) depend only on the function L. From its deﬁnition L is a sinusoidal, and can thus take both positive and negative values. Those circles that have a radius for which L becomes negative, are CTCs3 . In order to ﬁnd the equations of the CTGs, the equations of motion have to be solved. But unfortunately as the functions of the metric are very complicated, it

2

Spacelike trajectories can be traversed by the particles travelling at superluminal velocities,

null by photons and timelike by particles with mass at velocities less than that of light. 3 Some of the examples mentioned by B. R. Steadman in [5] are 7.0 × 103 , 2.0 × 109 units etc.

CHAPTER 2. AN OVERVIEW

10

Figure 2.1: Van Stockum spacetime showing the existence of closed timelike curve due to the tipping of the cones

is diﬃcult to solve these equations analytically, therefore a numerical approach is taken. The fourth order Runge-Kutta method is used to integrate the equations of motions and the a graphical approach is used to ﬁnd curves that are closed. In the following chapter, the above processes shall be discussed in detail.

**Chapter 3 Closed Timelike Geodesics
**

Time hasn’t stopped for any troubles, heartaches, or any other malfunctions of this world, so please don’t tell me it will stop for you. —– C.S. Lewis To test the self consistency principle the CTGs must be found. In order to ﬁnd the CTGs, the equations of motion (EOM) have to be solved. In the ﬁrst portion of this chapter, the EOM are obtained by casting the Lagrangian of the van Stockum metric into the Euler-Lagrange equations. Then the EOM are numerically integrated (Using the fourth order Runge Kutta algorithm) to ﬁnd the trajectories of the timelike geodesics. Moreover, the closure condition is imposed using a graphical analysis method. Once the appropriate parameters satisfying the closure condition are found, a CTG can be uniquely determined.

3.1

The Equations of motion

In the case of curved geometry, the Lagrangian L Lagrangian can be na¨ ively deﬁned as the diﬀerence between the kinetic and the potential energies of a system. is covariantly stated as:

4

L=

µ, ν=1

gµν xµ xν , ˙ ˙

(3.1)

where xµ represents the total diﬀerential of the xµ coordinate, with respect to ˙ an aﬃne parameter τ , which is the proper time in our case. Using the deﬁnition of the metric (2.1), the Lagrangian becomes: 11

CHAPTER 3. CLOSED TIMELIKE GEODESICS

12

2L = 2

ds dτ

2

˙ ˙˙ ˙ = −F t2 + H(r2 + z 2 ) + Lφ2 + 2M φt. ˙ ˙

(3.2)

The EOM are then obtained by substituting the L into the Euler-Lagrange equations: d ∂L ∂L = . µ dτ ∂ x ˙ ∂xµ Thus the above equation will give us four equations, one for each of the coordinate. However, as the φ, z and t coordinates are not explicitly present in the Lagrangian, three constants of motions are obtained, one along a coordinate (except along r) each as shown below.

∂L ∂r ˙ ∂L ˙ ∂φ ∂L ∂z ˙ ∂L ˙ ∂t

= Pr = H r = constant, ˙ ˙ ˙ = Φ = Lφ + M t = constant, = Pz = H z = constant, ˙ = E ˙ ˙ = M φ − F t = constant.

(3.3) (3.4) (3.5) (3.6)

This means that the momentum along the φ (Φ) and the z (Pz ) coordinate, and the energy (E) will be conserved. In our work we shall suppress the z coordinate by demanding that the change in z coordinate be zero (as mentioned earlier in section 2.2). This must be done because any change in z will not result in CTGs. Since Pz is conserved and the increase in τ will not change the sign of H, the sign of z ˙ cannot change as well, thus dooming z to always increase or decrease indeﬁnitely. Hence closure can never occur in z. One may think that the above argument can be applied to r too, and argue that closure cannot occur in the radial direction. Therefore dismissing any possibility of closure. However as Pr is not conserved, the above argument does not hold for r. Hence it could be possible to ﬁnd closure. The E and Φ1 can be solved to get the EOM along the φ and the t axes. These

1

The E and Φ are to treated as if they are independent for the rest of the paper. However

strictly speaking they are related by the 4-momentum invariance refer to appendix

CHAPTER 3. CLOSED TIMELIKE GEODESICS are given by: ME + F Φ ˙ φ = , r2 M Φ − LE ˙ t = , r2 z = 0. ˙

13

(3.7) (3.8) (3.9)

As there is no homogeneity along r, momentum is not conserved along that direction. Therefore the EOM along r can be only obtained from the Euler-Lagrange equation and it takes the following form:

r4 (2H r + H r2 ) − Φ2 F (F L + r2 ) + 2M M (LE 2 − F Φ2 ) + L E 2 (F L + r2 ) = ¨ ˙ 2M EΦ(2M 2 + r2 ) + L F Φ(F Φ + 2M E) + F LE(2M Φ − LE) − 4F Φ2 r + 4LE 2 r − 8M EΦr, where the prime represents the diﬀerentiation with respect to r. The equation for r is highly nontrivial and very involved. Fortunately this equation can be avoided ¨ by invoking the constraint that the curve be timelike. This constraint will result in a ﬁrst order diﬀerential, which can be found by demanding that (ds/dτ )2 from equation (3.2) assume a negative value, (which is −1 for timelike curves). Using the relations (3.2), (3.7), (3.8), (3.9), the equation for r, becomes: ˙ r2 H r2 = LE 2 − F Φ2 − 2M EΦ − 2r2 . ˙ (3.10)

The above four equations (3.7), (3.8), (3.9) and (3.10) completely describe the motion of a particle in the van Stockum spacetime.

3.2

3.2.1

Trajectories

The Simple Circles and the Helices

Before we begin to analyze the general EOM, we shall ﬁrst consider a speciﬁc case of a circle (similar to the qualitative analysis in section 2.2). The acceleration along ˙ ˙ r, for a Closed Timelike Circle (which is characterized by t = r = z = 0) is given by ˙ r=− ¨ r 4 Φ2 L . L2 (3.11)

CHAPTER 3. CLOSED TIMELIKE GEODESICS

14

A particle can remain on this Closed Timelike Circular geodesic only if there exist solutions for r = 0. It is found that there are inﬁnitely many nontrivial solutions ¨ which occur for L = 0. When solved for r, using the deﬁnition of L from (2.2), the above condition results in: rk = R exp [2(kπ − 2 ) cot ], such that k ∈ N. (3.12)

Figure 3.1: The Simple Circle, E = 393.548, Φ = 100, a =

√ 5/4, R = 1, k = 1

This example, as mentioned earlier, is a circular geodesic which exists in a plane of constant time. Such curves seem very bizarre and physically unrealistic. Therefore they can be called a ‘Simple Circles’. These circles are highly unstable; if the particle travelling on them slightly deviates from the ideal curve they fall into a helix (it is a timelike geodesic which is not closed). The above statement is equivalent to saying that for non integral values of k (or k ∈

+

− N) in equation (3.12), the r will

correspond to helical trajectories. A particle travelling on them can move only unidirectionally in time, either continuously upwards or downwards. Objects move forward or backward in time according to the following conditions: ∆t > 0; rk=even < r < rk=odd , ∆t < 0; rk=odd < r < rk=even . (3.13) (3.14)

CHAPTER 3. CLOSED TIMELIKE GEODESICS

15

Figure 3.2: The Helix, E = 393.548, Φ = 100, a =

√

5/4, R = 1, k = 0.99

A detailed discussion of the above two cases has been done in [5] by B. R. Steadman. The diagrams for the two cases have been illustrated in the following ﬁgures 3.1 and 3.2.

3.2.2

The Fancy Circles

In this section the geodesics that are not as geometrically simple as the Simple Circles shall be discussed. They are named the Fancy Circles, in anticipation that they could be ‘circular’. The Simple Circles hold very little physical meaning as they exist in a plane of constant time. If more meaningful trajectories are to be found then we have to let loose some of the strict conditions that were assumed earlier. ˙ ˙ The values of φ, t and r are generally nonzero. This will give some degree of freedom ˙ to change the radial, angular and time position for a particle. This time, the three EOM (3.7), (3.8) and (3.10) must be solved together. Unfortunately, as the functions H, L, M , F in the EOM are highly non-linear, therefore analytical integration of the EOM is impossible. Therefore we shall resort to numerical methods.

CHAPTER 3. CLOSED TIMELIKE GEODESICS

16

3.3

3.3.1

Algorithm

Runge Kutta Method - Timelike and Geodesic

The EOM are ﬁrst order linear diﬀerential equations. The Runge-Kutta method is one of the standard iteration based procedures, used to numerically integrate a ﬁrst order ordinary diﬀerential equation with initial values. Hence, the RungeKutta method

2

can be used for numerical integration of the EOM with respect to

the proper time, τ . Moreover, the C programming language will be used to write our program. The code can be viewed in appendix B. The values of a and R are kept constant throughout program (a, R are intrinsic properties of the universe; hence the trajectories found for a particular set of a, R can also be correspondingly found for other sets of values). The control variables of the program are E and Φ. Furthermore, the initial position of the particle r0 3 , φ0 and t0 must also be speciﬁed. For ease of calculation, the initial conditions t0 and φ0 will be kept as 0. In conclusion, to run the program the necessary inputs are E, Φ, r0 and the step size h. The program generates a ﬁle containing a list of the three coordinates (r, φ and t) of the curve along with the proper time τ and the number of iterations. These points are plotted using MatLab (the codes can be viewed in appendix C)to generate the trajectories. By selecting smaller step size, the error can be reduced. In order to authenticate the results produced from the program, the value of the Lagrangian was evaluated at every point of the trajectory. It turns out that it is a constant, −1, indicating that the curves are timelike, thus validifying that the program is running accurately.

3.3.2

Graph Analysis - Closure

Having carried out the above procedure, the trajectory of the timelike geodesic of a particle (for a given E and Φ) can be completely given. However, to ﬁnd CTGs, the closure condition must also be imposed. Fundamentally, to impose closure we need the parameters E and Φ as well as a suitable r0 .

2 3

In our case the Fourth order Runge Kutta method (RK4) shall be used. The r0 should be inserted such that the value of r is real. ˙

CHAPTER 3. CLOSED TIMELIKE GEODESICS

17

Figure 3.3: The Graph of r, t, φ versus r ˙ ˙ ˙

In the case of the Simple Circle, this relation was already imposed by demanding ˙ ˙ that the curve be a circle (t = r = 0). For more general cases, closure can be found by demanding that after some evolution of the particle, if the value of r returns to r0 , the value of t should return to t0 and φ to 2mπ (where m is an integer). However, strictly speaking there are two types of the Fancy Circles. One is when the value of r has the same sign as the initial radial velocity r0 and the other is when it is ˙ ˙ opposite. The ﬁrst case is called the Smooth Fancy Circle, and the second one the Non-smooth Fancy Circle4 . Let us consider the following deﬁnitions (with reference to the ﬁgure 3.3): • tf ull ≡ the value of time, when r = r0 and r = +r0 ˙ ˙ • φf ull ≡ the value of angle, when r = r0 and r = +r0 ˙ ˙ • tpartial ≡ the value of time, when r = r0 and r = −r0 ˙ ˙ • φpartial ≡ the value of angle, when r = r0 and r = −r0 ˙ ˙

Smooth Fancy Circles The speciﬁc conditions for Smooth Fancy Circles are 1. Time condition: tf ull = t0

4

The former curve is diﬀerentiable everywhere, whereas the latter is non-diﬀerentiable at the

‘self intersection’ or non-smooth point.

CHAPTER 3. CLOSED TIMELIKE GEODESICS

18

Figure 3.4: The graph of tf ull versus E and Φ. The points of intersection between the curved structure and t = 0 are the possible candidates which could satisfy closure. Here a = 0.9, R = 1, h = 2−14

2. Angle condition: n · φf ull = 2mπ + φ0 (with m and n as integers) When a Smooth Fancy Circle is generated 3.5 it turns out that the trajectory is ﬂower-like and not circular (however, the name fancy circle shall be retained to avoid confusion). The number of petals, n (named so due to the ﬂower pattern generated) is the multiple of φf ull needed to ensure closure in space, m is the number of rounds around the cylinder. It can be seen that the ﬁrst condition can be easily fulﬁlled. However, the second condition requires that φf ull be a rational multiple,

m n

of 2π. Mathematically, this can always be done because a rational number can

always be approximated from an irrational number up to any arbitary degree of accuracy. Therefore, if the right E and Φ are found then a Smooth Fancy Circles can be found. A graphical plotting method is used to determine the phase regions of E and Φ that can statisfy the above conditions. Firstly, the value of Φ is varied, keeping E constant. Then E is varied and Φ is reset to scan through the phase region to plot out the value of tf ull . Once the graph is generated, one can ﬁnd the appropriate E and Φ that satisfy tf ull = 0, to obtain closure. In the following portion of this subsection, the method to obtain a Smooth Fancy Circle is elaborated upon.

CHAPTER 3. CLOSED TIMELIKE GEODESICS

19

In order to save computing time, the suitable phase regions of E and Φ are found ˙ such that the generic curves in the ﬁgure 3.3 can be found. The t curve cuts inside the egg-shaped r curves ˙

5

˙ and the φ curve remains constantly above or below 06 .

This can then help reduce the phase region to plot the graph in ﬁgure 3.4.

Figure 3.5: The Top View of a Smooth Fancy Circle, E = 0.1, Φ = 31.46, a = 0.9, R=1

To obtain a Smooth Fancy Circle, ﬁrstly the E and Φ must satisfy that tf ull = 0. Figure 3.4 shows how the tf ull changes with respect changes in E and Φ. The ragged surface indicates the error and uncertainty in tf ull which does not aﬀect the results too much. The points on this manifold which intersect with the plane of t = 0, satisfy the time condition. Amongst these points, those which satisfy the second condition give us the appropriate E and Φ. For example E = 0.1 and Φ = 31.46 satisfy both the conditions, with m = 9 and n = 40 hence we can obtain a Smooth Fancy Circle. The trajectory of the above Smooth Fancy Circle with 40 petals and gone through 9 rounds is given in the ﬁgure 3.5 and ﬁgure 3.6.

5

˙ ˙ This is to ensure that in average, the increase in t (t is positive) is equal to the decrease in t(t

is negative) so that tf ull = 0 can be fulﬁlled. 6 This is to ensure that φ keeps on increasing or decreasing with time.

CHAPTER 3. CLOSED TIMELIKE GEODESICS

20

Figure 3.6: A Side View of a Smooth Fancy Circle, E = 0.1, Φ = 31.46, a = 0.9, R=1

Non-smooth Fancy Circles On the other hand, the speciﬁc conditions for a Non Smooth Fancy Circles are: 1. Time condition: tpartial = −n · tf ull 2. Angle condition: n · φf ull + φpartial = 2mπ (with m and n as integers) The E and Φ are found by making sure that there exists one r0 that satisfy the above two conditions at once. From the above statement, it might seem as if a Non-smooth Fancy Circle is ‘characterized’ by a speciﬁc starting point r0 . This is not true as any starting point in the Non-smooth Fancy Circle will generate the whole curve. Similarly the construction of the Non-smooth Fancy Circle is done as shown below in the program in appendix B.3. In the program, the ranges of E and Φ are varied and then the number of petals, n and rounds, m are speciﬁed to ﬁnd a particular curve. The program repeats the calculation of the values tpartial , tf ull , φpartial , φf ull for diﬀerent starting values, r0 from the minimum possible r to the maximum value of r (refer to ﬁgure 3.3) at a particular E and Φ.

CHAPTER 3. CLOSED TIMELIKE GEODESICS

21

Figure 3.7: The Top View of a Non-Smooth Fancy Circle, E = 0.01, Φ = 4.63295, a = 0.9, R = 1

Figure 3.8: Another View of a Non-Smooth Fancy Circle, E = 0.01, Φ = 4.63295, a = 0.9, R = 1

The value of r0 such that tpartial = −n · tf ull is satisﬁed is named r0t . The value of r0 such that n · φf ull + φpartial = 2mπ is satisﬁed is named r0φ . The program stops when r0t = r0φ , indicating that the two conditions above are satisﬁed. The values of E and Φ such that this happens is then used to generate the Non-smooth Fancy Circle. One of the example of a Non-smooth Fancy Circle is

CHAPTER 3. CLOSED TIMELIKE GEODESICS

22

Figure 3.9: The scale of the error in r evaluated at the nth iterative step for a = 0.9, R = 1, E = 0 and Φ = 39.15, where h = 2−16

given in the ﬁgure 3.7 and ﬁgure 3.8.

3.4

3.4.1

**Estimation and Error Analysis
**

Theoretical Error

The truncation error in Fourth order Runge Kutta (RK4) method is proportional to the ﬁfth order of the step size (h5 ) for each iteration. Let this error be denoted by O(h5 ). To approximate this we use the following method. Let u be the approximate solution to r(τ ) at τ0 + n ∗ h through n iterations of the RK4 method. r(τ ) = u + n · O(h5 ) Let v be the approximate solution to r(τ ) at τ0 + n ∗ h through 2n iterations with half the step size. r(τ ) = v + 2n · O( Solving for O(h5 ) we get n · O(h5 ) = u−v (1 − 2−4 ) (3.15) h5 ) 2

The above error is called the local error in r, which is evaluated for the nth step. The scale of the error is given in the ﬁgure 3.9.

CHAPTER 3. CLOSED TIMELIKE GEODESICS

23

As it can be observed this error is not observable until large n. If one desires to improve the accuracy, make the step size smaller.

3.4.2

Program Error

There’s one estimation that is necessary for the program to work, called the sign switch eﬀect. To understand it, the following form of the equation for r must be ˙ seen clearer (refer to ﬁgure 3.3). r=± ˙ LE 2 − F Φ2 − 2M EΦ − 2r2 . r2 H (3.16)

The sign switch eﬀect comes in when the value of r reaches 0, the value of r ˙ then will not change from the maximal value, rmax or minimal value, rmin once it got there. It means that at some point of r or equivalently, r2 close to 0, the sign ˙ ˙ for r must change to make r periodic and moving. To accommodate to diﬀerent E, ˙ Φ and the step size h, the quantity

dr2 ˙ ∆r, dr

(refer to appendix B.1) the estimation

of the change of r2 in one iteration, is used to determine the lower boundary for ˙ which r2 becomes close to 0 and for r to change sign. The criteria for changing signs ˙ ˙ introduces error in the determination of the turning points. Let ∆r be the error in r incurred. Then

∆r = |rmax − rmax | where rmax is the maximum radius of the orbit, where r is zero. ˙ rmax is the value of r when the ‘sign switch’ mechanism activates. ∆r cannot be analytically derived, but can be calculated numerically. Under the conditions E = 0, Φ = 39.15, a = 0.9, R = 1, rmax = 15.63275029 (10 s.f.), and from the program rmax = 15.545398065, yielding ∆r = 0.087352225. The error in φ value at the turning points, denoted by ∆φ, is given by ∆φ = φ ∆r. r ˙ For the conditions mentioned above, ∆φ = −0.0000233023. The error in t similarly

t is given by ∆t = r ∆r. For the above conditions, ∆t = −0.00115663. Hence if two ˙ ˙ ˙

sections of a curve come within the above mentioned range of error, the curve can be considered closed.

**Chapter 4 Self Consistency
**

If the universe of discourse permits the possibility of time travel and of changing the past, then no time machine will be invented in that universe. —– Larry Niven The consistency problem in the van Stockum spacetime is studied in this portion of the paper, by making use of the CTGs that have just been developed. We shall also try to see whether Novikov’s hypothesis still holds. Based on the initial conditions, there are two broad classes of collisions that can be constructed. One which involves a ball to travel in a Smooth Fancy Circle, and the other in a Non-smooth one. The collisions shall be discussed in a General Relativistic framework. In the end, a summary of both the cases, along with the pros and cons of the self consistency principle, is presented.

4.1

Smooth Curves

Let us consider a Smooth Fancy Circle, which is uniquely determined by parameters E1 and Φ1 . It is always possible to pick one particular point on the curve and construct a timelike geodesic, which has the form of a helix, passing through it. Let the parameters of the Helix be E2 and Φ2 . Furthermore, having obtained these two curves, let us assume that there are two identical balls B1 and B2 (both point-like and both possessing the same mass), such that B1 is travelling on the Fancy Circle 24

CHAPTER 4. SELF CONSISTENCY

25

Figure 4.1: The collision between the balls B1 and B2 , travelling on the Fancy Circle and the Helix respectively (the fancy circle and the helix has not been used, as the diagram is too complicated to see the collision clearly).

and B2 on the Helix. Moreover, we also demand that the initial conditions of B1 and B2 are arranged such that they reach the intersection point of the Fancy Circle and the Helix at the same time. Having set up the boundary conditions, let us now study the collision between these two balls. Given the above initial conditions, the conservation of energy E and angular momentum Φ can be invoked, to determine the evolution of the state of the balls after collision. According to our deﬁnition, the energy and the angular momentum of B1 is given by E1 and Φ1 respectively, and that of B2 is given by E2 and Φ2 . The conservation equations are: E1 + E2 = E1 + E2 , Φ1 + Φ2 = Φ1 + Φ2 , (4.1) (4.2)

where the primed values represent the ﬁnal energies and angular momenta. The above two equations only impose that the sum of the energies and the angular momenta be constants. Considering the E values in a special case, if the magnitude of E1 is 0.01 and E2 is 0.04, energy conservation only demands that the sum E1 + E2 be equal to 0.05. Over and above this, if the solution is expected to be physically acceptable it is a necessary that the resultant conditions after a collision be consistent with the initial conditions of the balls (here the self consistency principle is being

CHAPTER 4. SELF CONSISTENCY

26

assumed). In the above speciﬁed case, there can exist inﬁnitely many results (for example: E1 = 0.02, E2 = 0.03 or E1 = 0.0001, E2 = 0.0499 etc.) that are mathematically acceptable; but not all are physically allowable. To ﬁnd out the physically permissible results, let us consider the case when E1 is 0.02, E2 is 0.03. It means that the balls B1 and B2 will, after collision, travel on trajectories that are characterized by the energies given by 0.02 and 0.03 respectively. Consequently, none of the balls travel on the Smooth Fancy Circle after the collision (given by energy 0.01 in this case) leaving no ball to explain the origin of B1 . This just means that when B2 comes to the intersection point of the Helix and the Smooth Fancy Circle, it will not undergo any collision as there is no ball there. So by contradiction, the only values for E1 and E2 is the trivial case E1 = 0.01 and E2 = 0.04 (when the balls retain their initial conditions) or E1 = 0.04 and E2 = 0.01 (when they switch their energies). So that the origin of B1 can be explained by having either of the balls, B1 or B2 , replace the ball B1 after the collision1 . A similar argument can be made for Φ2 . Thus there is only one non trivial consistent solution3 , which requires B1 to travel on the helix and B2 on the smooth fancy circle after the collision. The two particles have exchanged their trajectories. After some thought, one will realise that they are the same particle! It is possible to construct a self consistent solution for a collision problem on a Smooth Fancy Circle (given by some speciﬁc parameters). Due to this, by deﬁnition, there can logically exist a consistent Smooth Fancy Circle. This result can be generalised for all Smooth Fancy Circles, as they only diﬀer in their parameters.

4.2

Non-Smooth Curves

Now let us replace the Smooth Fancy Circle with a Non-smooth one and redevelop the collision problem. The parameters of the Non-smooth curve are deﬁned as E1

1

This is an important fact which applies not only for this case but also for the ones that shall

be discussed later. 2 Due to the 4-momentum invariance, the case for angular momentum is taken cared of, refer to appendix 3 such that E1 = E2 , E2 = E1 , Φ1 = Φ2 and Φ2 + Φ1

CHAPTER 4. SELF CONSISTENCY

27

Figure 4.2: The collision between the balls B1 and B2 in Case A

and Φ1 and all other deﬁnitions made earlier remain the same. In order to work out the collision, just as before, another geodesic which intersects the Non-smooth curve has to be considered. It turns out that there are various diﬀerent ways of doing this. Firstly, as the curve is Non-smooth, it is already ‘self intersecting’, therefore it would be natural to construct the self collision of the ball moving on the Non-smooth circle itself (Case A). Moreover, another possible geodesic is a Helix passing through the Fancy Circle at the Non-smooth point (Case B)4 . The approach to the problem shall remain same as in the previous section4.1.

4.2.1

Case A

As Non-smooth Fancy Circle is being considered, the problem of collision becomes drastically simpler. This is because we already have one curve that intersects itself. To ﬁnd out the trajectory of the whole curve, ﬁrstly the C program can be made to run from the point just before the collision point until just after the collision point as shown in ﬁgure 4.2. Let the Non-smooth portion be called trajectory 1 and the other two curves that are sticking out from the the collision point, together, as trajectory 2. The balls B1 and B2 are initially travelling on trajectory 1 and

4

This is analogous to the collision that was constructed in the Smooth Fancy Circle case.

CHAPTER 4. SELF CONSISTENCY

28

trajectory 2 respectively. Now the conservation equations (4.1) and (4.2) can be considered. The constants E1 , E2 and Φ1 , Φ2 are equal to each other as both the trajectories are in essence the same. Therefore the equations (4.1) and (4.2) now read as: 2E1 = E1 + E2 , 2Φ1 = Φ1 + Φ2 . (4.3) (4.4)

Just as before, the above two equations form the necessary mathematical conditions, but in order to be physically acceptable either of the resultant energies and momenta must replace be equal to E1 and Φ1 respectively. The only possible case when this can happen, is when E1 = E2 = E1 and Φ1 = Φ2 = Φ1 . As before, there are two cases. The collision results in B1 travelling out of the Non-smooth circle and B2 travelling into the circle, so that eventually B2 discovers itself be B1 . Or B1 is knocked back into the circle, and B2 keeps on trajectory 2, never entering trajectory 15 .

4.2.2

Case B

In this case, the collision is constructed in a way similar to that of Smooth curves such that a helical geodesic passes speciﬁcally through the non-smooth point. The main diﬀerence is that this problem is a three and not a two body collision. The non-smooth circle is parametrized by E1 and Φ1 and the Helix by E2 and Φ2 . Now ball B1 is travelling on the Non-smooth curve and ball B2 on the Helix. At the non-smooth point the ball B1 not only meets B2 , but also its own past self called B3 (with the same parameters as B1 , that is E1 and Φ1 ). Therefore, when the problem is being evaluated, all the three balls must be considered. The equations are then:

2E1 + E2 = E1 + E2 + E3 , 2Φ1 + Φ2 = Φ1 + Φ2 + Φ3 ,

5

(4.5) (4.6)

However, this case seems to violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics, that B1 gets looped

inﬁnitely many times and still remains the same (having the same entropy). The Second Law does not directly forbid this case, but it makes this case a weak one in macroscopic situations

CHAPTER 4. SELF CONSISTENCY

29

Figure 4.3: The collision between the balls B1 and B2 , travelling on the Non-smooth Fancy Circle and the Helix respectively along with the third ball B3

However, one of the 3 balls will have to enter the Closed Timelike Geodesic and become B3 (to ensure consistency and time travel). So either B1 becomes B3 (E1 = E1 and Φ1 = Φ1 ) or B2 becomes B3 (E2 = E1 and Φ2 = Φ1 )6 . The other 2 parameters of the remaining 2 balls are not constrained in anyway, so it can be anything that branches out of the collision point. Using the results from the analysis of the case A (subsection 4.2.1) and case B (subsection 4.2.2), one can conclude that Non-smooth Fancy Circles can also exist logically.

6

The last possibility of B3 becoming B3 is not considered here as it seems to violate the Second

Law of Thermodynamics as mentioned before

CHAPTER 4. SELF CONSISTENCY

30

4.3

Summary

In this chapter two broad cases of billiard ball collision were studied. The central aim of the whole procedure was to determine which CTGs can exist logically. It was found that all CTGs can exist logically, provided that the interaction between particles travelling on them adhere to the mathematical and the physical constraints (in the form of the energy-momentum conservation and self consistency respectively). These results testify the validity of the claim made by Novikov and his colleagues in the van Stockum universe. It is indeed true that all the CTGs (at least for the cases that have been considered till now) can exist logically. It would be interesting to consider collisions of billiard balls travelling along other possible trajectories. Although the self consistency principle severely restrains the evolution of particles after an interaction, it has the amazing ability of sifting out the logically sensible, consistent solutions from the inconsistent ones. It must be noted however that the principle of self consistency does not in any way show that time travel is possible or not. It is just a tool to ‘resolve’ the possible paradoxes that may arise due to time travel.

Chapter 5 Conclusion

Whatever begins, also ends. —– Seneca In order to address the issues of time travel paradoxes in the van Stockum spacetime, ﬁrstly the equations of motion were obtained. Then the trajectories of particles travelling on a Closed Timelike Geodesic were obtained by making use of the Fourth order Runge Kutta and the graphical analysis methods. It was found that in general the CTGs can be divided into two categories, one the Smooth Fancy Circles and the other the Non-smooth Fancy Circles ones. Finally, assuming the self consistency principle, the test of particle collision was performed. It was found that it is possible to ﬁnd at least one self consistent solution, for any general collisions involving the Fancy Circles (Smooth and Non-smooth). As all the Fancy Circles just diﬀer by their parameters, the above conclusion can be extended for all CTGs. Therefore, it can be claimed that the CTGs are logically possible (according to the deﬁnition given in section 2.1), at least as far as point-like particles are dealt with. Although our work does not manage to ‘resolve’ the time travel paradoxes, it shows that at least one consistent case can be obtained for any general collisions even when curved spacetime geometry is considered. This project has been written for the Special Program in Science under the theme of Cycles and Sustainability. Our work is related to the theme in the following way: in spite of time travel (which can be achieved by using CTGs that are ‘cycles’ in time), it is possible to ‘preserve’ the consistency in the evolution. 31

**Chapter 6 Future Work
**

There is never enough time to do everything, but there is always enough time to do the most important thing. —– Brian Tracy There are various diﬀerent possible paths that can be studied as a follow up for this project. As far as the CTGs are concerned, the method used for ﬁnding the non smooth fancy circle can be generalized. Moreover, a classiﬁcation of all the CTGs can be done by using the number of petals and turns as the parameters (if there exists a unique mapping). Along the line of the self consistency problem, it would be interesting to consider collisions of billiard balls travelling along other trajectories. One of the possible examples being the collision between two particles travelling on two smooth or non smooth fancy circles. The same argument concerning self consistency can be considered under the light of the Chronology Protection Conjecture proposed by Stephen Hawking [3]. This study might provide more insight of the time travel behaviour in general.

32

Chapter 7 Acknowledgements

Time is a great teacher, but unfortunately it kills all its pupils. —– Hector Berlioz Firstly, we would like to express our gratitude to our staﬀ mentor Associate Professor Edward Teo for devoting his time to guide us through this project. We would like to convey our thanks to our mentor, Tran Chieu Minh, for the time and eﬀort he has put in, to guide us in this long and perilous path. Moreover, we would like to thank Lim Yen Kheng, from whom we have gained our present understanding of General Relativity. Our special thanks to Thong May Han for her presence and support. Last but not the least, we would like to express our gratitude to the Special Program in Science (SPS) for giving us an opportunity to study and perform research, allowing us enlarge the horizons of our knowledge.

33

**Appendix A The Four Momentum and the Relationship between E and Φ
**

In order to solve the collision problem the following two equations can be invoked:

E1 + E2 = E1 + E2 , Φ1 + Φ2 = Φ1 + Φ2 ,

(A.1) (A.2)

Moreover, just like the classical cases, a relation connecting the diﬀerent four momenta can be framed. This relation is the invariance of the length of the four momentum. According to the deﬁnition of our aﬃne parameter ‘proper time’, four momentum Pµ and inverse metric tensor g µν the relation can be written as:

P

2

= g µν Pµ Pν = −2,

−1 r2 H

E Pr Φ 0

−LH 0 M H 0 0 r2 0 0 MH 0 F H 0 0 0 0 r2

E Pr = −2. Φ 0

(A.3)

The above equation can be simpliﬁed into the equation of r (A.4). It can be ˙ written as r2 H r2 = LE 2 − F Φ2 − 2M EΦ − 2r2 . ˙ 34 (A.4)

APPENDIX A. THE FOUR MOMENTUM AND THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN E AND Φ35 The above equation forms a relation between E and Φ for a particular r and r. ˙ For the collision problem there are four unknowns E1 , E2 , Φ1 and Φ2 , and three equations (A.2), (A.2) and (A.4). This indicates that there is one free condition that can be imposed. If it is imposed that the solution be self consistent, we would at least require that either E1 = E2 or Φ1 = Φ2 1 . Let us just say that E1 = E2 . According to equation (A.2), one can immediately conclude that E2 = E1 . Then using the equation (A.4), the relation between Φ1 and Φ2 can be written as (r2 H r2 + 2r2 )1 − (r2 H r2 + 2r2 )2 = −F (Φ2 − Φ22 ) − 2M E1 (Φ1 − Φ2 ). ˙ ˙ 1 (A.5)

˙ At the intersecting point r1 and r2 are both equal; moreover, the values of (r2 )1 and (r2 )2 must also be equal. Hence the left hand side of the equation becomes zero, ˙ leaving: (Φ1 − Φ2 )[F (Φ1 + Φ2 ) + 2M E1 ] = 0. (A.6)

For any general value of the radius, the above equation can only hold if Φ1 = Φ2 . Hence, it was shown that when E2 = E1 , then Φ1 = Φ2 . This result when applied to the equation (A.2), to give Φ2 = Φ1 . These results show that even if the extra condition (invariance of the length of Four Momentum) is used, the consistent case is mathematically permitted. Therefore the parameters E and Φ, while considering the consistent CTGs, can be trated independently of each other.

1

To show that the two balls, B1 and B2 , have switched identities after the collision, it must be

shown that both the corresponding parameters are equal.

Appendix B C codes

B.1 The main C code

**The fourth order Runge-Kutta method. To be compiled by Miracle C program.
**

#include <stdio.h> #include <math.h> /*Define constant*/ #define pi 3.1415926535 /*put a file in*/ FILE *p1; /*functions prototypes*/ /*main functions*/ long double Lg(long double v, long double w, long double x, long double y, long double a, long double R, long double ep, long double E, long double P); long double fl(long double v, long double w, long double x, long double y, long double a, long double R, long double ep, long double E, long double P); long double fk(long double v, long double w, long double x, long double y, long double a, long double R, long double ep, long double E, long double P, long double g); long double ft(long double v, long double w, long double x, long double y, long double a, long double R, long double ep, long double E, long double P); long double fg(long double v, long double w, long double x, long double y, long double a, long double R, long double ep, long double E, long double P); long double fh(long double v, long double w, long double x, long double y,

36

APPENDIX B. C CODES

37

long double a, long double R, long double ep, long double E, long double P); /*HLMF*/ long double H(long double v, long double a, long double R, long double ep); long double L(long double v, long double a, long double R, long double ep); long double M(long double v, long double a, long double R, long double ep); long double F(long double v, long double a, long double R, long double ep); long double Hp(long double v, long double a, long double R, long double ep); long double Lp(long double v, long double a, long double R, long double ep); long double Mp(long double v, long double a, long double R, long double ep); long double Fp(long double v, long double a, long double R, long double ep);

void main() { /*Declare the variables used*/ long int n, n1, e, m, m1, m2, e1, pr; /*iteration counters*/ long double tau, r, phi, t, r_dotsquare, phi_dot, t_dot; /*variables*/

long double k1, k2, k3, k4, q1, q2, q3,q4, w1, w2, w3, w4; /*Runge-Kutta dummies*/ long double l1, l2, l3, r1, r2, r3, t1 ,t2, t3, u1, u2, u3, o1, o2, o3; /*Runge-Kutta dummies*/ long double cond, input, rcheck, revived, g, sp1, sp2, sp3, sp4, Wcheck, condW; /*checkers*/ long double a, R, ep, E, P; /*Parameters*/

long double tP, r_0, tPW, Pn, PW, Dr_dot2, rn, Dr_dot3, rn_dotsquare, prmax; /*values of variables*/ long double h, W; /*small increments*/ /*small increments inputs*/

long double step, stepW;

long double Lgn,Lgnn; /*the Lagrangian*/ /*Open a file for writing in the data*/ p1 = fopen("p5.dat", "w"); /*Input constants of motions*/ revived=1; input=1; while (input==1)

APPENDIX B. C CODES

{printf("Please ensure that the value aR is between 1/2 and 1\n"); printf("Put in the angular velocity of the cylinder, a\n"); scanf("%f", &a); printf("Put in the Radius of the cylinder, R\n"); scanf("%f", &R); input=0; if (a*R>=1 | a*R<=0.5){ input=1; }} printf("Please determine the energy of the ball, E\n"); scanf("%f", &E); printf("Please determine the angular momentum of the ball, P\n"); scanf("%f", &P); ep=atan(sqrt((4*pow(a,2)*pow(R,2)-1))); /*Input initial values*/ tau=0; printf("phi="); scanf("%f", &phi); printf("t="); scanf("%f", &t); /* printf("tau="); scanf("%f", &tau); */ /* input for step */ g=1; pr=1; while(revived==1){ rcheck=0; while (rcheck==0) {printf("r="); scanf("%f", &r); r_dotsquare=ft(r, phi, t, tau, a, R, ep, E, P); phi_dot=fg(r, phi, t, tau, a, R, ep, E, P);

38

APPENDIX B. C CODES

t_dot=fh(r, phi, t, tau, a, R, ep, E, P); Lgn=Lg(r,phi,t,tau,a,R,ep,E,P); printf( "r_dot^2=%Lg phi_dot=%Lg t_dot=%Lg Lagrangian=%Lg\n\n", r_dotsquare, phi_dot, t_dot, Lgn); if (r_dotsquare >= 0) {rcheck=1; } else { rcheck=0; printf("r is not suitable, choose a different r\n"); }} r_0=r; revived=0; printf( "Please enter a value for step, where h=2^(-step),\n step="); scanf("%f", &step); /*set h*/ h=pow(2,-step); printf( "Please determine the number of rounds to simulate, prmax=\n"); scanf("%f", &prmax); /*print initial value*/ printf( "r=%Lg phi=%Lg t=%Lg tau=%Lg h=%Lg E=%Lg P=%Lg a=%Lg R=%Lg ep=%Lg\n", r, phi, t, tau, h, E, P, a, R, ep); /*start the loop*/ n=0; n1=0; while (cond == 0) {rn_dotsquare=ft(r, phi, t, tau, a, R, ep, E, P); k1 = h*fk(r, phi, t, tau, a, R, ep, E, P, g); q1 = h*fg(r, phi, t, tau, a, R, ep, E, P); w1 = h*fh(r, phi, t, tau, a, R, ep, E, P); l1 = (r+k1/2); t1 = (phi+q1/2);

39

APPENDIX B. C CODES

u1 = (t+w1/2); o1 = (tau+h/2); k2 = h*fk(l1, t1, u1, o1, a, R, ep, E, P, g); q2 = h*fg(l1, t1, u1, o1, a, R, ep, E, P); w2 = h*fh(l1, t1, u1, o1, a, R, ep, E, P); l2 = (r+k2/2); t2 = (phi+q2/2); u2 = (t+w2/2); o2 = (tau+h/2); k3 = h*fk(l2, t2, u2, o2, a, R, ep, E, P, g); q3 = h*fg(l2, t2, u2, o2, a, R, ep, E, P); w3 = h*fh(l2, t2, u2, o2, a, R, ep, E, P); l3 = (r+k3); t3 = (phi+q3); u3 = (t+w3); o3 = (tau+h); k4 = h*fk(l3, t3, u3, o3, a, R, ep, E, P, g); q4 = h*fg(l3, t3, u3, o3, a, R, ep, E, P); w4 = h*fh(l3, t3, u3, o3, a, R, ep, E, P); rn=r; r = r+(k1+2*(k2+k3)+k4)/6; phi = phi+(q1+2*(q2+q3)+q4)/6; t = t+(w1+2*(w2+w3)+w4)/6; tau = tau+h; n = n+1; e = n1*10000+n; Lgn=Lg(r,phi,t,tau,a,R,ep,E,P); r_dotsquare=ft(r, phi, t, tau, a, R, ep, E, P); /*Edge boundary values*/ if((r-rn)*fl(rn,phi,t,tau,a,R,ep,E,P)>= 0) {Dr_dot3=(r-rn)*fl(rn,phi,t,tau,a,R,ep,E,P);} else if((r-rn)*fl(rn,phi,t,tau,a,R,ep,E,P)< 0) {Dr_dot3=-(r-rn)*fl(rn,phi,t,tau,a,R,ep,E,P);}

40

APPENDIX B. C CODES

if(h*sqrt(ft(r, phi, t, tau, a, R, ep, E, P))* fl(rn,phi,t,tau,a,R,ep,E,P)>= 0) {Dr_dot2=h*sqrt(ft(r, phi, t, tau, a, R, ep, E, P))* fl(rn,phi,t,tau,a,R,ep,E,P);} else if(h*sqrt(ft(r, phi, t, tau, a, R, ep, E, P))* fl(rn,phi,t,tau,a,R,ep,E,P)< 0) {Dr_dot2=-h*sqrt(ft(r, phi, t, tau, a, R, ep, E, P))* fl(rn,phi,t,tau,a,R,ep,E,P);} if (r>r_0 & r_dotsquare<Dr_dot2+Dr_dot3) {g=-1;} else if(r<r_0 & r_dotsquare<Dr_dot2+Dr_dot3) {g=1;} if (r<R){cond=1; printf("Ball hits the cylinder, choose a different E or P!!!!!!\n");} if (n % 10 == 0) { fprintf(p1, "%lu %Lg %Lg %Lg %Lg %Lg\n", e, r, phi, t, tau, Lgn);} if(n==10000){ n1=n1+1; n=0; } if (phi>=2*pi*pr){ pr=pr+1; printf("%lu round reached\n", pr-1);} else if (-2*pi*pr>=phi){ pr=pr+1; printf("%lu round reached\n", pr-1); } if (phi>=prmax*2*pi | phi<= -prmax*2*pi ){ cond=1; printf("Finished!\n");} if(n1==10000){ cond=1; printf("%lu iteration reached", e);} if (r_dotsquare < 0) {printf("Error in r_dotsquare, choose a different r\n");

41

APPENDIX B. C CODES

cond=1; revived=1;} /*for cond*/} /*for revived*/} fclose(p1); /*for main*/} /*Define functions*/

42

long double Lg(long double v, long double w, long double x, long double y, long double a, long double R, long double ep, long double E, long double P) {long double c; c=H(v, a, R, ep)*ft(v,w,x,y,a,R,ep,E,P)+L(v, a, R, ep)* pow(fg(v,w,x,y,a,R,ep,E,P),2)+2*M(v, a, R, ep)*fg(v,w,x,y,a,R,ep,E,P)* fh(v,w,x,y,a,R,ep,E,P)-F(v, a, R, ep)*pow(fh(v,w,x,y,a,R,ep,E,P),2); return(0.5*c); } long double fl(long double v, long double w, long double x, long double y, long double a, long double R, long double ep, long double E, long double P) {long double c; c=(((pow(E,2)*Lp(v,a,R,ep)-pow(P,2)*Fp(v,a,R,ep)-2*E*P*Mp(v,a,R,ep))/ v-(-2*Hp(v, a, R, ep)*v+(2*H(v,a,R,ep)+v*Hp(v,a,R,ep))* (pow(E,2)*L(v,a,R,ep)-pow(P,2)*F(v,a,R,ep)-2*E*P*M(v,a,R,ep)))/ H(v, a, R, ep))/(v*H(v, a, R, ep))); return(c); } long double ft(long double v, long double w, long double x, long double y, long double a, long double R, long double ep, long double E, long double P) {long double c; c=(-2+(pow(E,2)*L(v,a,R,ep)-pow(P,2)*F(v,a,R,ep)-2*E*P*M(v,a,R,ep))/ pow(v,2))/(H(v, a, R, ep)); return(c); } long double fk(long double v, long double w, long double x, long double y, long double a, long double R, long double ep, long double E, long double P, long double g)

APPENDIX B. C CODES

{ long double c, d, m, p; c=(-2+(pow(E,2)*L(v,a,R,ep)-pow(P,2)*F(v,a,R,ep)-2*E*P*M(v,a,R,ep))/ pow(v,2))/(H(v, a, R, ep)); m=100; d=sqrt(c); p=-sqrt(c); if (g==1){ return(d); } else if (g==-1) return(p); /*for fk*/}

43

long double fg(long double v, long double w, long double x, long double y, long double a, long double R, long double ep, long double E, long double P) { long double d; d=(E*M(v,a,R,ep)+P*F(v,a,R,ep))/pow(v,2); return(d); } long double fh(long double v, long double w, long double x, long double y, long double a, long double R, long double ep, long double E, long double P) { long double b; b=(P*M(v,a,R,ep)-E*L(v,a,R,ep))/pow(v,2); return(b); } long double H(long double v, long double a, long double R, long double ep) { long double c; c=(exp(-pow(a,2)*pow(R,2)))*pow((v/R),(-2*pow(a,2)*pow(R,2))); return(c); } long double L(long double v, long double a, long double R, long double ep)

APPENDIX B. C CODES

{ long double c; c=(v*R*(sin(3*ep+log(v/R)*tan(ep))))/(sin(ep)+sin(3*ep)); return(c); }

44

long double M(long double v, long double a, long double R, long double ep) { long double c; c=(v*(sin(ep+log(v/R)*tan(ep))))/(sin(2*ep)); return(c); } long double F(long double v, long double a, long double R, long double ep) { long double c; c=(v*(sin(ep-log(v/R)*tan(ep))))/(R*sin(ep)); return(c); } long double Hp(long double v, long double a, long double R, long double ep) { long double c; c=(-2*pow(a,2)*pow(R,2))*(exp(-pow(a,2)*pow(R,2)))*pow((1/R),(-2*pow(a,2)* pow(R,2)))*pow((v),(-2*pow(a,2)*pow(R,2)-1)); return(c); } long double Lp(long double v, long double a, long double R, long double ep) { long double c; c=(R/(sin(ep)+sin(3*ep)))*(sin(3*ep+log(v/R)*tan(ep))+tan(ep)* cos(3*ep+log(v/R)*tan(ep))); return(c); } long double Mp(long double v, long double a, long double R, long double ep) { long double c;

APPENDIX B. C CODES

45

c=(1/sin(2*ep))*(sin(ep+log(v/R)*tan(ep))+tan(ep)*cos(ep+log(v/R)*tan(ep))); return(c); } long double Fp(long double v, long double a, long double R, long double ep) { long double c; c=(1/R*sin(ep))*(sin(ep-log(v/R)*tan(ep))-tan(ep)*cos(ep-log(v/R)*tan(ep))); return(c); }

B.2

The graphical method C code

These codes generate the graph ﬁgure 3.4. To save space, the codes that are available above are not repeated but are represented by the dots. p1 = fopen("p9.dat", "w"); . . . printf("determine the accuracy of r to be printed\n"); scanf("%f", &u); printf("Please enter a value for the change in P, \n Pr="); scanf("%f", &Pr); printf("Please enter a value for the change in E, \n Er="); scanf("%f", &Er); printf("Please enter a value for when to stop for P, \n Pend="); scanf("%f", &Pend); printf("Please enter a value for when to stop for E, \n Eend="); scanf("%f", &Eend); /*print initial value*/ printf( "r=%Lg phi=%Lg t=%Lg tau=%Lg h=%Lg E=%Lg P=%Lg a=%Lg R=%Lg ep=%Lg\n", r, phi, t, tau, h, E, P, a, R, ep); /*start the loop*/

APPENDIX B. C CODES

Evar=0; P_0=P; while(Evar==0) {P=P_0; Pvar=0; while(Pvar==0) {r=r_0; phi=0; t=0; tau=0; g=2; n=0; n1=0; cond=0; sp1=0; sp2=0; sp3=0; sp4=0; /*printf("%lu %Lg %Lg %.12Lg e , E , P, r, phi, t, tau);*/ while (cond == 0) . . if (g==-1 & sp1==0) { /*fprintf(p1, "%lu %Lg %Lg %.12Lg %.12Lg %.12Lg %.12Lg\n", %.12Lg %.12Lg %.12Lg\n",

46

e , E , P, r, phi, t, tau);*/ sp1=1; r_max=r; } if (g==-1 & sp2==0 & r<=r_0) { /*fprintf(p1, "%lu %Lg %Lg %.12Lg %.12Lg %.12Lg %.12Lg\n",

e, E , P, r, phi, t, tau);*/ sp2=1; phi_1p=phi;

APPENDIX B. C CODES

t_1p=t; } if (g==1 & sp3==0) { /*fprintf(p1, "%lu %Lg %Lg %.12Lg %.12Lg %.12Lg %.12Lg\n",

47

e, E , P, r, phi, t, tau);*/ sp3=1; r_min=r; } if (g==1 & sp4==0 & r>=r_0) { /*fprintf(p1, "%lu %Lg %Lg %.12Lg %.12Lg %.12Lg %.12Lg %.12Lg %.12Lg\n",

e, E , P, r, phi, t, tau, u*r_diff, Lgn);*/ sp4=1; phi_1=phi; cond=1; printf("r=%Lg phi_1p=%Lg phi_1=%Lg t_1p=%Lg t_1=%Lg Lgn=%Lg \n", r , phi_1p, phi_1, t_1p, t_1,Lgn); } . . /*for cond*/} P=P+Pr; printf("P=%Lg\n", P); if(P>=Pend) {Pvar=1; printf( "Next E=%Lg, congrats, The SPS Time Traveller group rocks\n", E+Er);} /*for Pvar*/ } E=E+Er; if(E>=Eend) {Evar=1; printf("Program ends Finally!\n");} /*for Evar*/ } /*for revived*/}

APPENDIX B. C CODES

fclose(p1); /*for main*/} . . .

48

long double fk(long double v, long double w, long double x, long double y, long double a, long double R, long double ep, long double E, long double P, long double g) { long double c, d, m, p; c=(-2+(pow(E,2)*L(v,a,R,ep)-pow(P,2)*F(v,a,R,ep)-2*E*P*M(v,a,R,ep))/pow(v,2))/ (H(v, a, R, ep)); m=100; d=sqrt(c); p=-sqrt(c); if (g==1 | g==2){ return(d); } else if (g==-1) return(p); /*for fk*/}

B.3

The code to ﬁnd the Non-smooth Fancy Circles

long double r_min, phi_1,phi_1p,t_1p, r_max,r_0t,sp5,r_0p,sp6,rounds,petals, r_0var, r_step, r_0real, t_1;/*the new ones for p11*/ /*Open a file for writing in the data*/ p1 = fopen("p11.dat", "w"); . . . printf("determine the number of rounds to be considered\n");

APPENDIX B. C CODES

scanf("%f", &rounds); printf("determine the number of petals to be considered\n"); scanf("%f", &petals); printf("Please enter a value for the change in P, \n Pr="); scanf("%f", &Pr); printf("Please enter a value for the change in E, \n Er="); scanf("%f", &Er); printf("Please enter a value for the change in r_0, \n r_step="); scanf("%f", &r_step); printf("Please enter a value for when to stop for P, \n Pend="); scanf("%f", &Pend); printf("Please enter a value for when to stop for E, \n Eend="); scanf("%f", &Eend); /*print initial value*/ printf( "r=%Lg phi=%Lg t=%Lg tau=%Lg h=%Lg E=%Lg P=%Lg a=%Lg R=%Lg ep=%Lg\n", r, phi, t, tau, h, E, P, a, R, ep); /*start the loop*/ Evar=0; P_0=P; while(Evar==0) {P=P_0; Pvar=0; while(Pvar==0) {r=r_0; phi=0; t=0; tau=0; r_0t=100; r_0p=10; g=2; n=0; n1=0; cond=0;

49

APPENDIX B. C CODES

sp1=0; sp2=0; sp3=0; sp4=0; sp5=0; sp6=0; /*printf("%lu %Lg %Lg %.12Lg e , E , P, r, phi, t, tau);*/ while (cond == 0) { . . . if (g==-1 & sp1==0) { /*fprintf(p1, "%lu %Lg %Lg %.12Lg %.12Lg %.12Lg %.12Lg\n", %.12Lg %.12Lg %.12Lg\n",

50

e , E , P, r, phi, t, tau);*/ sp1=1; r_max=r;} if (g==-1 & sp2==0 & r<=r_0) { /*fprintf(p1, "%lu %Lg %Lg %.12Lg %.12Lg %.12Lg %.12Lg\n",

e, E , P, r, phi, t, tau);*/ sp2=1; phi_1p=phi; t_1p=t;} if (g==1 & sp3==0) { /*fprintf(p1, "%lu %Lg %Lg %.12Lg %.12Lg %.12Lg %.12Lg\n",

e, E , P, r, phi, t, tau);*/ sp3=1; r_min=r;} if (g==1 & sp4==0 & r>=r_0) { /*fprintf(p1, "%lu %Lg %Lg %.12Lg %.12Lg %.12Lg %.12Lg %.12Lg %.12Lg\n",

e, E , P, r, phi, t, tau, u*r_diff, Lgn);*/ sp4=1; phi_1=phi; cond=1;

APPENDIX B. C CODES

printf("r=%Lg phi_1p=%Lg phi_1=%Lg t_1p=%Lg t_1=%Lg Lgn=%Lg \n", r , phi_1p, phi_1, t_1p, t_1,Lgn);} . . . /*for cond*/} r_0var=0; sp5=0; sp6=0; while(r_0var==0) {r=r_0; phi=0; t=0; tau=0; g=2; n=0; n1=0; cond=0; sp1=0; sp2=0; sp3=0; sp4=0; /*printf("%lu %Lg %Lg %.12Lg e , E , P, r, phi, t, tau);*/ while (cond == 0) { . . . /*for cond*/} if (t_1p>=-petals*t_1& sp5==0) {r_0t=r_0; sp5=1; printf("r_0t found~! r_0t=%Lg\n\n", r_0t);} %.12Lg %.12Lg %.12Lg\n",

51

APPENDIX B. C CODES

if (phi_1p>= -2*rounds*pi-petals*phi_1 & sp6==0) {r_0p=r_0; sp6=1; printf("r_0p found~! r_0p=%Lg\n\n", r_0p);} if((r_0t-r_0p)>= 0) {r_0real=(r_0t-r_0p);} else if((r_0t-r_0p)< 0) {r_0real=-(r_0t-r_0p);} if (r_0real<=2*r_step) {r_0var=1; printf("Non-smooth Closed Timelike Curve found! r_0=%Lg\n", r_0); } if (r_0>=r_max-2*r_step) {r_0var=1; printf(

52

"No non-smooth Closed Timelike Curve in these conditions,r_min=%Lg,r_max=%Lg\n", r_min, r_max); } r_0=r_0+r_step; /*for r_0var*/} P=P+Pr; printf("P=%Lg\n", P); if(P>=Pend) { Pvar=1; printf("Next E=%Lg, congrats, The SPS Time Traveller group rocks\n", E+Er); } /*for Pvar*/ } E=E+Er; if(E>=Eend) { Evar=1; printf("Program ends Finally!\n");

APPENDIX B. C CODES

} /*for Evar*/ } /*for revived*/} fclose(p1); /*for main*/} /*Define functions*/ . . .

53

long double fk(long double v, long double w, long double x, long double y, long double a, long double R, long double ep, long double E, long double P, long double g) {long double c, d, m, p; c=(-2+(pow(E,2)*L(v,a,R,ep)-pow(P,2)*F(v,a,R,ep)-2*E*P*M(v,a,R,ep))/pow(v,2))/ (H(v, a, R, ep)); m=100; d=sqrt(c); p=-sqrt(c); if (g==1 | g==2){ return(d);} else if (g==-1) return(p); /*for fk*/}

B.4

. . .

Codes to ﬁnd Simple Circle

r=R*exp(2*(k*pi-2*ep)/tan (ep)); E=M(r,a,R,ep)*P/L(r,a,R,ep); . .

APPENDIX B. C CODES

.

54

**Appendix C Other codes
**

C.1

C.1.1

Matlab Codes

Curve Generator

This code generate the curves from the data of the C code. load p5.dat; r2 = p5(:,2); t2 = p5(:,4); phi2 = p5(:,3); tau2 = p5(:,5); [X,Y,T]=pol2cart(phi2,r2,t2); plot3 (X, Y, T, ’DisplayName’, ’X, Y, T’,’Color’,’green’); figure(gcf) xlabel(’x’) ylabel(’y’) zlabel(’t’) grid on % % % read data into the my_xy matrix copy first column of my_xy into x and second column into y

C.1.2

Graphical Method

This code generates the graph from the data generated by the program the graphical method C code, the ﬁgure 3.4 is generated by this code. load P9PositiveP.dat; r =P9PositiveP(:,4); % % read data into the my_xy matrix copy first column of my_xy into x

55

**APPENDIX C. OTHER CODES
**

t = P9PositiveP(:,6); phi = P9PositiveP(:,5); tau = P9PositiveP(:,7); E = P9PositiveP(:,2); P = P9PositiveP(:,3); [X,Y,T]=pol2cart(phi,r,t); j=reshape(t,30,299); e=[0.001:0.001:0.299]; p=[20:1:49]; rp=reshape(r,30,299); yth=j-j; surf (e, p, j, rp, ’DisplayName’, ’e, p, j, rp’); figure(gcf) hold on surf (e, p, yth, rp, ’DisplayName’, ’e, p, j, rp’); figure(gcf) % and second column into y

56

C.2

Mathematica codes

The code below is used to generate the graph in ﬁgure 3.3. Manipulate[ Plot[{Sqrt[\[ExponentialE]^(a^2 R^2) (r/R)^( 2 a^2 R^2) (-2 P^2 ( Cos[(-1 + 4 a^2 R^2)^0.5‘ Log[r/R]] -

Sin[(-1 + 4 a^2 R^2)^0.5‘ Log[r/R]]/(-1 + 4 a^2 R^2)^0.5‘)/( r R) - (2 G P Csc[2 ArcTan[(-1 + 4 a^2 R^2)^0.5‘]] Sin[ ArcTan[(-1 + 4 a^2 R^2)^0.5‘] + (-1 + 4 a^2 R^2)^0.5‘ Log[ r/R]])/r + 1/(4 r (-1 + 4 a^2 R^2)^0.5‘) G^2 R (1 + (-1 + 4 a^2 R^2)^1.‘)^(3/2) Sin[3 ArcTan[(-1 + 4 a^2 R^2)^0.5‘] + (-1 + 4 a^2 R^2)^0.5‘ Log[r/R]])], -Sqrt[\[ExponentialE]^( a^2 R^2) (r/R)^(

**APPENDIX C. OTHER CODES
**

2 a^2 R^2) (-2 P^2 ( Cos[(-1 + 4 a^2 R^2)^0.5‘ Log[r/R]] Sin[(-1 + 4 a^2 R^2)^0.5‘ Log[r/R]]/(-1 + 4 a^2 R^2)^0.5‘)/(r R) - (2 G P Csc[2 ArcTan[(-1 + 4 a^2 R^2)^0.5‘]] Sin[ ArcTan[(-1 + 4 a^2 R^2)^0.5‘] + (-1 + 4 a^2 R^2)^0.5‘ Log[ r/R]])/r + 1/(4 r (-1 + 4 a^2 R^2)^0.5‘) G^2 R (1 + (-1 + 4 a^2 R^2)^1.‘)^(3/2) Sin[3 ArcTan[(-1 + 4 a^2 R^2)^0.5‘] + (-1 + 4 a^2 R^2)^0.5‘ Log[r/R]])], Csc[2 ArcTan[(-1 + 4 a^2 R^2)^0.5‘]] Sin[ ArcTan[(-1 + 4 a^2 R^2)^0.5‘] + (-1 + 4 a^2 R^2)^0.5‘ Log[r/R]] P /r - 1/(4 r (-1 + 4 a^2 R^2)^0.5‘)

57

G R (1 + (-1 + 4 a^2 R^2)^1.‘)^(3/2) Sin[3 ArcTan[(-1 + 4 a^2 R^2)^0.5‘] + (-1 + 4 a^2 R^2)^0.5‘ Log[ r/R]], ( P ( Cos[(-1 + 4 a^2 R^2)^0.5‘ Log[r/R]] Sin[(-1 + 4 a^2 R^2)^0.5‘ Log[r/R]]/(-1 + 4 a^2 R^2)^0.5‘))/( r R) + 1/r G Csc[2 ArcTan[(-1 + 4 a^2 R^2)^0.5‘]] Sin[ ArcTan[(-1 + 4 a^2 R^2)^0.5‘] + (-1 + 4 a^2 R^2)^0.5‘ Log[r/ R]]}, {r, 0, 20}, PlotRange -> {-100, 100}, AxesLabel -> {r, r_dot}], {{a, 0.9, "Angular Velocity"}, 0.001, 100}, {{R, 1, "Radius"}, 0.006, 999}, {{G, 0.1, "Energy"}, 0, 1000}, {{P, 31.46, "Angular Momentum"}, 0, 50}]

Bibliography

[1] Novikov I.D. Echeverria F. Klinkhammer G. Thorne K.S. Friedman J., Morris M.S. and Yurtsever U. Cauchy problem in spacetimes with closed timelike curves. Physical Review D, 42:1915, 1990. [2] K. Godel. An example of a new type of comsmological solutions to the einstein’s ﬁeld equations of gravitation. Reviews Modern Physcial, 21:447, 1949. [3] S. W. Hawking. Chronology protection conjecture. Physical Review D, 46:603, 1992. [4] Novikov I.D. Time machine and self consistent evolution in problems with self interaction. Physical Review D, 45:1989, 1992. [5] B. R. Steadman. Causality violation on van stockum geodesics. General Relativity and Gravitation, 35:1721, 2003. [6] Frank J. Tipler. Rotating cylinders and the possibility of global causality violation. Physical Review D, 9:9, 1973. [7] van Stockum W. J. The gravitational ﬁeld of a distribution of particles rotating about an axis of symmetry. Proc. Roy. Soc. Edinburgh, 57:135, 1936.

58

- schwarzschildUploaded byDu Khucthuy
- GRWBookUploaded byjayandbob
- Chiba 09 Slow Roll k EssenceUploaded byJorge Alberto Venzor Valdivia
- a b c dUploaded byRizwan Samor
- The Time Machine Ch 2Uploaded bychristinecbooks
- Introduction to Time TravelUploaded byDavidBeh
- Articulo Periodic Oscillations of the Relativistic Pendulum With FrictionUploaded byBrando Black
- Albert EinsteinUploaded byjosh005
- G space.txtUploaded bySea Man
- The Time MachineUploaded byAlejandro Cervantes
- Aether RecUploaded byorthodharma280
- Tesla InterviewUploaded bywangha666
- Particle MotionUploaded bygirithik14
- Past and future of cosmic topologyUploaded byjosolaz
- bok%3A978-3-319-14496-2.epubUploaded byDillon Morse
- Reading Ep ieltsUploaded byIqbal singh
- 1997.09 - Stefan Marinov - In Memoriam Stefan MarinovUploaded bysadang
- Theory of Relativity 10 Year OldUploaded bykupitiro
- AP Physics B 2013 Practice Workbook3.pdfUploaded byfan
- 51492772-Goldstein-solutions.pdfUploaded byYahira Mariell Mendoza
- blue20!Uploaded byDARIO CASTRO CASTRO
- Test 1Uploaded byChristopher Au
- SpeRelExUploaded byfree_prog
- qw3163.docxUploaded byTetamu Dunia II
- 1210.6261v1.pdfUploaded byJuan Carlos Vasquez
- 20130605043945180.pdfUploaded byRobin Cook
- Radiation Reaction as a Non-conservative-2016Uploaded byVeerareddy Vippala
- Optimal Control with Input Shaping for Input Tracking and Vibration Suppression of a Flexible Joint ManipulatorUploaded bymagdi elmalek
- 11th Unit Test 01 Set 1Uploaded byChetan
- SDA on PendulumUploaded byKhym Nicolas