Dear Professor Romero,

I'm reading your recent article "Chronology violation and the Cosmological Argument" [Ref. 1] with great interest.

Do CTCs and wormholes exist? The whole issue is utterly unclear to me [Ref. 2],

http://members.aon.at/chakalov/Brun.html#2

You suggested that gravitational lensing of background sources can be interpreted as an effect of natural wormholes (p. 5). May I suggest a bit different test.

Can you tell the difference between causal anomalies from naked singularities, and causal anomalies from CTCs? I can't. They are like two sides of one coin. The end result will be the same IMHO.

So, it seems to me that CTCs from multiple-connected spacetimes would have resulted in a genuine naked singularity, with all catastrophic events, just as in the case of simply-connected spacetime [Ref. 3]. Non-trivial topology, to the best of my knowledge, can not save us from the disasters due to naked singularity. Just one genuine naked singularity is sufficient to kill us all, very fast indeed. Ergo, the fact that you can read this email is the proof that naked singularity *and* CTC do not exist: reductio ad absurdum.

Am I wrong? I will highly appreciate the opinion of your colleagues as well. I am not at all sure that have grasped the subject 'two sides of one coin' properly.

Thank you very much in advance.

It is quite a different matter what could have possibly saved us from such catastrophes. I think we need new physics, just as in the case of ultraviolet catastrophe back in December 1900. My speculations can be read at

http://members.aon.at/chakalov/Penrose.html#NB

http://members.aon.at/chakalov/LHC.html#Holon

Best regards,

Dimi Chakalov
http://members.aon.at/chakalov
--
Dead matter makes quantum jumps; the living-and-quantum matter is smarter.
 

References

[Ref. 1] G.E. Romero. Chronology violation and the Cosmological Argument. Mon, 20 Jan 2003 21:17:36 GMT,
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/gr-qc/0301070

Comments: 7 pages. Proceedings of the International Symposium on Astrophysics Research and on the Dialogue between Science and Religion, Vatican Observatory, 2002, eds. C. Impey and C. Petry, published by University of Notre Dame Press.

Gustavo E. Romero: "The self-existent object is just a feature of space-time itself, it is not either created or destroyed in space-time. Such objects clearly violate the first premise of the Kalam Cosmological Argument.

"It is very important to emphasize that, despite that the self-existent objects have not a cause of their existence, they do not violate causality. In fact, since their space-time history is a continuous closed curve, their physical state at every time t is casually linked to a previous state. In this way, these objects are not causally created, but they have a finite existence in the sense that they exist during a finite time interval, and their existence does not violate strict causality.
...

"If natural wormholes exist in the universe (e.g. if the original topology after the Big-Bang was multiply connected), then there should be observable signatures of the interactions between matter with negative energy density with the normal matter. (...) Whether such space-time wormholes actually exist in our universe is something that has to be found yet.
...

"In particular, multiple connected space-times can accommodate objects that exist by themselves, without external cause, but also without any local violation of causality. These objects "begin to exist" in accordance to even the most restrictive definitions given in Section 2."
 

[Ref. 2] W.B. Bonnor. Closed timelike curves in general relativity.
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/gr-qc/0211051

 

[Ref. 3] S.L. Shapiro, S.A. Teukolsky (1991). Formation of naked singularities: The violation of cosmic censorship. Phys. Rev. Lett. 66(8), 994.