2. Elementary Examples
Presently, we are going to consider a couple of simple specific examples. They are interesting by themselves and also they will be useful in the next section.
Example 1 (Straight string)
. Let U be the dihedral angle swept in the course of evolution by a resting 2D cone in Minkowski spacewhere is a non-zero constant smaller than π.Then, the components of the boundary are the half planes , the neighbourhood O can be chosen to be the wedge and be the rotation by in the planes of fixed t. It is the thus obtained spacetime S—referred to as in this particular case—that is usually called string.
Example 2 (Running angle.
Figure 2)
. In order to construct a mild generalization (depicted in Figure 2) of the string singularity discussed above, let us redefine Uwhere is the translation by in the x-direction (x being a cartesian coordinate ) with and . Obviously, the just built spacetime, , and the former one, , are isometric, they are related by a boost in the x-direction.
Two circumstances are especially noteworthy:
pick a point p of the upper gray ray in Figure 2. The deficit angle of the moving string, α, iswhence The asterisk here denotes “in the proper reference system of the string” and γ is the Lorentz factor. Thus the rotation axis of the moving string is not parallel to the t-axis. Correspondingly, a vector initially lying in the -plane acquires, after being transported around the string, a non-zero t-component. This means, in particular, that t is a “bad” coordinate: the (maximal extensions of) surfaces are not embedded into the spacetime.
Figure 2.
The black angle is the “hole” for a certain (to convert the former to set , ). is obtained by identifying—at each t—the upper gray ray, , with the lower one, .
Figure 2.
The black angle is the “hole” for a certain (to convert the former to set , ). is obtained by identifying—at each t—the upper gray ray, , with the lower one, .
Example 3 (Inelastic head-on collision)
. Presently, consider the spacetime withwhere are defined in (6) and is the reflection through the y-axis in the -plane. U at each moment of t is a pair of equal angles moving—with the speed v—towards each other until at their vertices collide, see Figure 3. At positive t, and start to overlap, see Figure 3c. Or, they can be viewed as a pair of receding obtuse angles (bounded by the gray lines in Figure 3) either of which has magnitude and (vertically directed) velocity . The spacetime S, denoted in this case, describing the head-on collision of two cones (or two parallel strings) is obtained by the pairwise gluing together—at each t—the upper two gray rays with the lower two . contains no closed causal curves. This observation is not quite trivial, as is observed from the comparison between and a Gott pair. The proof is based on the fact that obeys the condition(i.e., only points with the same t are identified). t grows along any future directed causal curve and hence such a curve cannot be closed. 3. String—String Scattering
In this section, we finally present a spacetime that can be interpreted as a causality respecting evolution of a Gott pair.
We start with the spacetime
, which differs from
, see Equation (
6), by one detail: the translation
is changed to the superposition
, where
is the translation by
in the
y-direction. The cross-section
of
is a pair of angles, moving towards each other with speed
v and with non-zero impact parameter
d, see
Figure 4a.
At positive
t’s, the angles partially overlap, taking the form of a skewed bowtie, see
Figure 4c. The bowtie’s boundary is a pair of broken lines, related by the point reflection
through the origin, of which the upper one consists of the straight segments
. Correspondingly, the lower broken line is constituted by the segments
,
. In the course of evolution, all four vertices
change their location and each
sweeps a strip
.
Presently, glue
to
and
to
(the gluing isometries being the rotation with the duly tilted axes, cf. Example 2). The resulting spacetime,
R, has almost all properties, cf. Conclusions, of the sought-for spacetime
. The former, however, is extendible (that is there exists a spacetime
X “greater” than
R, i.e.,
). To eliminate this last “flaw”, let us, first, introduce one more object—the parallelogram
depicted by the white quadrangle in
Figure 5 and defined as the parallelogram
, see
Figure 4c, contracted in the vertical direction so that
Of course the locations of the points
,
are again functions of
t. Thus, with the passage of time, the segments
sweep four strips, which we shall denote by
with corresponding indexes.
The last step in building
is gluing together
which is possible because, as follows directly from the definition,
,
, and
have the same proper widths as and are parallel to
,
, and
, respectively (note that though
and
are parallel, the map sending one of them to the other fails to do the same with their velocities. That is why we cannot use the translation as a gluing isometry between them).
Thus, one can obtain the desired spacetime
by gluing together certain surfaces. In doing this, one identifies only points with the sane
t. Therefore, by the criterium (
9),
contains no closed causal curves.
4. Conclusions
In summary, we have demonstrated that for any d, , and there is a causality respecting spacetime, , which describes the scattering with the impact parameter d of two strings. Either moves in an “otherwise Minkowski” space with the speed v and has the angle deficit .
From the Minkowski space
M
remove the wedge
and glue together the boundaries
The resulting spacetime,
, called a tachyonic string is similar to that considered in Example 1 and describes a superluminal particle.
It is readily observed that at negative
t,
M is isometric to
, but the whole spacetimes differ. Put another way, the
-region of a Minkowski space has infinitely many different (varying in
k) flat extensions. In fact, it is easy to prove (for example, by employing the notion of “loop singularity” [
1]) a stronger fact:
Proposition 1. Any spacetime M, if it has a flat extension , has infinitely many different flat extensions, each of which contains a (loop) string-like singularity.
Thus, in a theory, where string-like singularities are included, the uniqueness of evolution of a spacetime is out of the question [the opposite claim made in [
9] should be taken with caution: in all appearance the author implies that of all imaginable singularities only those considered in Examples 1 and 2 (and their intersections) are allowed in spacetimes under study].
Thus, the existence of
is by itself not surprising in the least. Moreover, it is a direct consequence of the theorem proven in [
10,
11]. What
is surprising is that
turns out to be so simple. In particular, it is orientable and string-like, cf. Equation (
1).