Thanks to particle accelerators, like the Large Hadron Collider (LCH) 175 meters (574 ft) beneath the Franco-Swiss border near Geneva, Switzerland, physicist have been able to routinely demonstrate forward time travel (i.e., time dilation) using subatomic particles. In a sense, you can think of the Large Hadron Collider as a time machine. It is capable of sending subatomic particles to the future. Unfortunately, we do not have a similar machine that can send subatomic particles to the past. However, Dr. Ronald Mallett is attempting to change that.
Dr. Ronald Mallett is an American theoretical physicist and the author of Time Traveler: A Scientist’s Personal Mission to Make Time Travel a Reality (2007). Dr. Mallett is a full professor at the University of Connecticut, where he has taught physics since 1975.
Dr. Mallett is attempting to twist spacetime using a ring laser (i.e., a laser that rotates in a circle) by passing it through a through a photonic crystal (i.e., a crystal that only allows photons of a specific wavelength to pass through it). The concept behind spacetime twisting by light (STL) is that by twisting space via the laser, closed timelike curves will result (i.e., time will also be twisted). In this way, Dr. Mallett hopes to observe a violation of causality when a neutron is passed through the twisted spacetime. Dr. Mallett also believes he will be able to send communication by sending subatomic particles that have spin up and spin down. Note, the spin of a subatomic particle is part of the particle’s quantum description. As a simple example, we can consider spin up equal to 1 and spin down equal to 0. Using this technique, Dr. Mallett can send a binary code, similar to the binary codes used in computing.
Few scientists openly discuss their work on time machines. They fear ridicule. In this regard, Dr. Mallett is a pioneer. When Dr. Mallett was ten years old, his father died at age thirty-three from a heart attack. Dr. Mallett has shared that his initial drive to invent a time machine was to go back in time and visit with his father. Unfortunately, the science of time travel only allows a person to go back in time to the point when the time machine is first turned on. Dr. Mallett acknowledges this, but continues his quest.
Dr. Mallett’s concept of twisting space is close to the concept of creating a wormhole, as discussed in my last post. Dr. Mallett is using laser light as means of creating the mouth of the wormhole. In a publication (R. L. Mallett, “The Gravitational Field of a Circulating Light Beam,” Foundations of Physics 33, 1307–2003), Dr. Mallett argued that with sufficient energies, the circulating light beam might produce closed timelike lines (i.e., time travel to the past).
Is Dr. Mallett’s theoretical foundation solid? According to physicists Dr. Olum and Dr. Everett, it is fatally flawed. In a paper published in 2005 (Ken D. Olum and Allen Everett, 2005, “Can a Circulating Light Beam Produce a Time Machine?”, Foundations of Physics Letters 18 (4): 379–385), they argue three points:
- Dr. Mallett’s analysis contains unusual spacetime (i.e., mathematical) issues, even when the power to the machine is off.
- The energy required to twist spacetime would need to be much greater than lasers available to today’s science.
- They note a theorem proven by Stephen Hawking (chronology protection conjecture—1992), namely, it is impossible to create closed timelike curves in a finite region without using negative energy.
Although Dr. Mallett did not address their criticism in a formal publication, he did argue in his book, Time Traveler, that he was forced to simplify the analysis due to difficulties in modeling the photonic crystal. This, however, is far from a complete response.
Who is right? In the physical sciences, we are judged by the weakest link in our theories. If I use this criterion, I would say the argument favors Dr. Mallett, since the chronology protection conjecture, which we will discuss in the next chapter, has come under serious criticism, and it is not clear that it presents a valid challenge. Nonetheless, Dr. Olum and Dr. Everett are highly regarded physicists. Therefore, at this point, it is hard to know who is right, and right about what. Perhaps the mathematical analysis is flawed, and the approach published by Dr. Mallett requires more energy than is available via today’s technology. However, we are witnessing a significant event in science. A respected physicist, Dr. Mallett, is openly publishing his work on building a backward time travel machine. Other respected physicists, Dr. Olum and Dr. Everett, are entering into a scientific debate regarding Dr. Mallett’s theoretical basis. From my point of view, this is how it should be in science. The debate is healthy. As a theoretical physicist, I know that the debate will end only when either:
- The Mallett time machine works, or
- The Mallett time machine enters the rubbish pile of scientific failures, along with astronomer Ptolemy’s Earth-centered model of the solar system and the flat Earth theories.
This material is based on my new book, How to Time Travel.
The energy from nuclear fusion reactors should be available within the next century and would be operational in magnetic bubbles in a space environment. Once we have it we should have enough energy to open wormholes. I don’t think we will ever see a biological entity time travel to the past, but the binary message system seems likely. Since the message would be going back in time I don’t think many people would understand it or maybe think it was a hoax. You would also be changing the past which in theory should also then change the future. If we sent a message back that President Kennedy would be shot in Dallas, Texas they would maybe laugh at it, but they certainly wouldn’t let him go. Hence you have changed the timeline. Some say you haven’t changed our timeline, but instead you have created a new one. We are simply still not advanced enough to find the knowledge needed to explain things we can’t even imagine and it gives you a headache. lol
What if mallets theary is right x he went on about sending particles x if you made the same mahine big enough for a human and a human size ball and put yourself in the ball you could wind your way down like the particles x and send the human in the machine also x all tho if you were able to get back to the past also with out a machine having a certain starting point time travel could be dangerous or maybe not who knows but it is interesting x
Why would you expect the receiving time machine to be in the correct physical position with the Earth accelerating through space around the milky way’s black hole?
Good question. Recent reverse causality experiments demonstrate the future can influence the past. For whatever reason, the frame of reference remains the same during and after the experiments. Reverse causality experiments are as close as we’ve come to time travel to the past.
The issue of whether Mallett is correct or not has been pretty much settled, in the negative direction. This paper removes all doubt, adding additional flaws to Mallett’s idea as well as revealing significant flaws in his thinking. The paper is by an engineer that knows Mallett and his excellent experience working in the advanced concept area and has written a book on time travel physics that leaves little to the imagination. The paper is at Academia.edu – https://www.academia.edu/17075372/Ring_Lasers_Closed_Timelike_Curves_Causality_Violation_and_the_Total_Design_Failure_of_Ronald_Malletts_Time_Machine_Twisting_by_Light
There’s no way that Mallett can be correct and for all of these issues raised in the paper to simultaneously exist. One surprise that I hadn’t read about before was the fact that Ronald Mallett seems to have not ever written a paper on time travel physics. Another is that he often contradicts himself on technical details within interviews.
Amazing…
I published your comment because you are entitled to your view. Readers are free to form their own opinions.
Ronald Mallet has been caught lying to the media, colluding with a con artist who has now been shut down by the FTC in Florida, engaging in false and misleading advertising, admitting that he’ll need stellar quantities of energy to twist time (meaning his theory was wrong all along) and contradicting his himself. Not my opinion. Here’s the evidence – https://paranovation.wordpress.com/2017/11/21/a-critical-analysis-of-ronald-l-mallett-phd-how-motherland-magazine-was-seduced-by-the-crazy-professor/
Hi David,
I consider your characterization of Dr. Mallett harsh and the evidence only an opinion. Still, I respect your right to express your opinion. Therefore, I am allowing your opinion to be published so that others may judge for themselves. I consider Dr. Mallett to be courageous to even share his thoughts and work on time travel since the subject still is treated with skepticism in the broader scientific community.