Timeline for Can the Causal Structure recover the manifold topology for non-chronological spacetimes?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
9 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 15 at 21:01 | history | edited | Tim Campion | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 30 characters in body
|
| May 15 at 20:52 | history | edited | Tim Campion | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 30 characters in body
|
| May 15 at 20:52 | comment | added | Tim Campion | @BastamTajik I see, I’ve answered the title question but not the main question in the body of the text. I’m not particularly interested in thinking about the question in the body of the text right now, but maybe somebody else will be. You could help them out by giving a more precise reference for this cosmic string metric, or by defining the coordinates in which you’re expressing the metric. | |
| May 15 at 19:26 | comment | added | Bastam Tajik | But this doesn't answer the question regarding the spinning Cosmic String. I really am just asking: knowing the causal structure of the spinning Cosmic String, what can be said about its manifold topology. That's what I really am concerned about. All the rest is just a pretext to get to the point. @Tim Campion | |
| May 14 at 18:45 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| May 15 at 2:52 | |||||
| May 14 at 15:46 | comment | added | Bastam Tajik | Anyway thanks alot for the answer. Do you think you can give the Cosmic String case a shot? How much its causal structure can tell us about the manifold topology. What are the constraints it imposes on then manifold topology? At least as much as you can extract. I know that the topological space is not unique, but there might be some general topological features in common between all such consistent possibilities. @Tim Campion | |
| May 13 at 21:48 | comment | added | Tim Campion | What? No. The fact that they don’t even have the same dimension indicates that they are even further from being conformally equivalent than you were hoping. Two manifolds of different dimension are never conformally equivalent. Conformal equivalence is a much, much finer equivalence relation than having the same dimension. | |
| May 13 at 20:35 | comment | added | Bastam Tajik | What you are syaing is rather better read by my eyes as dimensional indeterminacy. As the two are tori still, topologically speaking, although not homeomorphic, but they're so upto an identification. Does that help to reformulate a more general answer? @Tim Campion | |
| May 13 at 19:45 | history | answered | Tim Campion | CC BY-SA 4.0 |