【24h】

No going back

机译:没有回头路了

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

It might be your greatest dream, I but for many physicists, time travel is their worst nightmare. "I think most of us would like to get rid of time machines if we possibly could," says Amanda Peet of the University of Toronto. "They offend our fundamental sensibilities." There's a very simple reason for this. Although the laws of nature seem to allow time machines to exist, they violate the principle of causality - the basic assumption that causes must precede their effects. The problem is, no one has come up with a definitive explanation for why time machines can't work. The best we have is Stephen Hawking's "chronology protection conjecture", which, in a nutshell, suggests that the universe has a built-in time cop. Whenever anyone is on the verge of constructing a working time machine the time cop intervenes, shutting the operation down before it has a chance to wreak havoc with the past. However, there are no time cops evident in the laws of physics, so at the moment the chronology protection conjecture is simply wishful thinking, a physicist crossing his fingers and hoping for the best. But that may be about to change.
机译:这可能是您最大的梦想,但对于许多物理学家来说,时间旅行是他们最糟糕的噩梦。多伦多大学的阿曼达·皮特(Amanda Peet)说:“我认为,如果可能的话,我们大多数人都希望摆脱时间机器。” “他们冒犯了我们的基本情感。”原因很简单。尽管自然法则似乎允许时间机器存在,但它们违反了因果关系原理-因果关系必须先于因果关系。问题是,没有人对为什么时间机器无法工作做出明确的解释。最好的是斯蒂芬·霍金(Stephen Hawking)的“时序保护猜想”,概括地说,这表明宇宙有一个内置的时间警察。每当有人濒临构建工作时间机器时,时间警察都会介入,在有机会破坏过去之前关闭该操作。但是,物理学定律中没有时间警察,因此,按时间顺序排列的保护性推测目前只是一厢情愿,一个物理学家伸出了手指,希望能取得最好的成绩。但这可能会改变。

著录项

  • 来源
    《New scientist》 |2003年第2413期|p.2830-32|共4页
  • 作者

    Ivan Semeniuk;

  • 作者单位

    Discovery Channel, Canada;

  • 收录信息 美国《科学引文索引》(SCI);美国《化学文摘》(CA);
  • 原文格式 PDF
  • 正文语种 eng
  • 中图分类 自然科学总论;
  • 关键词

获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号