Can R. Mallett's Device Overcome Energy Challenges for Time Travel?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Marilyn67
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Device Energy Weak
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers on R. Mallett's device and its potential to address energy challenges related to time travel, specifically through the lens of the Lense-Thirring effect and closed timelike curves (CTCs). Participants explore theoretical implications, energy requirements, and the feasibility of using rotating fields to achieve desired effects.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Maryline questions the astronomical energy requirements for the laser needed to produce the Lense-Thirring effect and suggests exploring the use of a reasonable energy laser or a rotating field with phase speeds exceeding that of light.
  • Some participants express uncertainty about the feasibility of increasing phase speed and its relevance to the effects described in Mallett's paper.
  • A participant critiques the mathematical consistency of Mallett's claims regarding closed timelike curves, providing detailed algebraic reasoning to support their view.
  • Maryline acknowledges a previous idea about using optical fibers to achieve superluminal rotating fields but later questions its validity, indicating a shift in understanding.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the energy requirements or the mathematical implications of Mallett's device. Multiple competing views and uncertainties remain regarding the feasibility of proposed approaches and the interpretation of Mallett's work.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include unresolved mathematical steps in Mallett's equations and the dependence on specific definitions of phase speed and energy conditions. The discussion reflects varying interpretations of theoretical constructs without definitive conclusions.

Marilyn67
Messages
100
Reaction score
20
TL;DR
Why not increase the phase speed of a rotating field (unlimited) ?
Hello,

I am sorry to raise this old subject concerning the device of R. Mallett, in particular, one is right to quote has violation of the condition on the weak energy which is not respected.
Okay, let's give up this violation of the weak energy condition for now.

In my opinion, the big problem is the energy required for the laser. This energy is astronomical for the strong fields necessary in order to obtain the Lense Thirring effect capable of producing CTC.

The most perfect mirrors would be vaporized, and second-order effects would produce pairs of particles that would reduce the energy of the beam.

So my big question is this:

Couldn't we use a reasonable energy laser, or a rotating field with (magnetic or electrostatic), (a phase speed much higher than that of light (unlimited), like the famous lighthouse rotating (for kids) in the galaxy, to compensate M (E / C²) with ω unlimited, what is technically possible ?

Lense–Thirring precession - Wikipedia

What happens if the speed at the circumference is much higher than the speed of light (phase speed, not information speed, we agree !)

Thank you in advance for your answers.

See you soon

Maryline[Moderator's note: Advertisement edited out.]
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Hello @PeterDonis,

Yes, I have already read this paper, but the thread I am referring to is this:

https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/the-mallett-time-machine.42834/

My question : would increasing the speed of a rotating field to a speed greater than that of light at the circumference (the phase speed can be unlimited) require "reasonable" energy to produce the same effects ? :

Decrease the astronomical energy required and increase Ꞷ in large proportions, with an identical Lense Thirring effect.

See you soon

Maryline
 
Marilyn67 said:
would increasing the speed of a rotating field to a speed greater than that of light at the circumference (the phase speed can be unlimited)

First, I'm not sure how you would increase the phase speed this way.

Second, I don't see any dependence of the effect on phase speed (which I would not expect since "phase speed" isn't generally relevant to things like the stress-energy tensor of light anyway) in the paper.
 
PeterDonis said:
the 2003 Mallett paper [1]

Looking at this paper, I find that its claim that there are closed timelike curves possible with the EFE solution it gives is inconsistent with the math shown in the paper. The claim is made near the end of Section 2 of the paper:

Equation (36) implies that for ##\lambda \ln (\rho / \alpha) > 1## then ##l < 0## so that the curves given by Equation (48) under these conditions are closed and timelike.

Equation (36) is:

$$
l = \rho \alpha - \lambda \rho \alpha \ln (\rho / \alpha)
$$

The ##\alpha## in this equation is the value chosen for the quantity given as ##\xi## earlier in the paper, as stated just before Equation (34). So the possible values for ##\alpha## will depend on the possible values for ##\xi##.

The equations that are relevant for determining the possible values for ##\xi## are Equation (18), which says

$$
\Delta^2 = f l + w^2 = \rho^2
$$

Equation (27), which says

$$
f \xi = w + \rho
$$

And Equations (30) and (31), which together say

$$
\rho = w + \xi l
$$

Equation (27) implies that ##f l = \xi^{-1} l \left( w + \rho \right)##. Substituting this into equation (18) gives

$$
\rho^2 = \xi^{-1} l \left( w + \rho \right) + w^2
$$

Substituting the equation obtained from Equations (30) and (31) for ##\rho## gives

$$
\left( w + \xi l \right)^2 = \xi^{-1} l \left( 2 w + \xi l \right) + w^2
$$

Which, after some algebra, gives

$$
\xi = - \frac{2 w}{l}
$$

Substituting ##w = \rho - \xi l##, derived from the equation above that combines Equations (30) and (31), into the above gives

$$
\xi = \frac{2 \rho}{l}
$$

Substituting this ##\xi## for ##\alpha## in Equation (36), to get an equation expressing the possible range for Equation (36) with all possible values of ##\alpha##, gives

$$
l^2 = 2 \rho^2 \left( 1 - \lambda \ln (l / 2) \right)
$$

It is apparent now that a value larger than ##1## for the logarithm here, which would mean a negative value for the RHS as a whole, is impossible, since it would make ##l^2## negative and hence ##l## imaginary. So this equation is not actually telling us anything physical about the spacetime: it is telling us about the limited range of the coordinates--they cannot cover any region including values of ##l## that would make the RHS of the above equation negative.
 
Hello @PeterDonis,

Thank you for your very well-argued answers.
I'am sorry for my late response.

I see that you are really an expert when you say that phase speed "isn't generally relevant to things like the stress-energy tensor of light anyway.

To increase the phase velocity, or obtain a superluminal rotating field at the circumference, my idea (stupid) was to connect a cylinder to optical fibers of increasing lengths, shifted by fractions of wavelength and connected to a frequency generator. (optical fibers for light or copper wires for a magnetic field.)

I realize that this idea was really very bad, because there would be no movement but a succession of "fixed" emissions (like a cinematographic tape).

Thanks again.

Maryline
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
4K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
839
  • · Replies 41 ·
2
Replies
41
Views
20K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
5K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
5K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
5K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
6K