Time travel using laser technology

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

Professor Ron Mallett's theory on time travel using laser technology has gained attention, particularly through a recent CNN article. The original paper, titled "Can a circulating light beam produce a time machine?" by R. L. Mallett, was published in 2003 and has faced various rebuttals, which are often difficult to access. Critics argue that the CNN coverage lacks scientific depth and primarily focuses on human interest rather than the physics involved. The discussion highlights the need for more rigorous scientific discourse surrounding Mallett's claims.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of general relativity and its implications on time travel
  • Familiarity with laser technology and its applications in physics
  • Knowledge of academic publishing and access to scientific papers
  • Awareness of the history of time travel theories in physics
NEXT STEPS
  • Read R. L. Mallett's original paper in Found. Phys. 33, 1307 (2003)
  • Explore rebuttals to Mallett's theory, particularly the 2004 article on arXiv
  • Investigate the role of media in science communication, focusing on CNN's coverage
  • Study the implications of laser technology in theoretical physics and time travel
USEFUL FOR

Physicists, science communicators, and anyone interested in the intersection of theoretical physics and media representation of scientific concepts.

pinball1970
Gold Member
2025 Award
Messages
3,658
Reaction score
5,794
Professor Ron Mallett is claiming that time travel is possible using lasers. I've put this in general for a reason (I was considering putting this in the sci fi section)
Article here
https://www.cnn.com/travel/article/time-travel-ron-mallett-scn/index.html
What I would like to ask is regarding his published work and rebuttals to it which are given in the article.
They are blank when I click. Ken Olum
https://redirect.viglink.com/?forma...iced in 2005 by Ken D. Olum and Allen Everett
 
Computer science news on Phys.org
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: pinball1970
Why do people post links directly to the PDF on arXiv and not the main page (which has the "cited by" link)? It's more work for a less useful answer. In this case, it's not pointing to the Mallett paper but rather the rebuttal. (And because its PDF one can't click on the "refers to" link to get the original paper)

The original paper is R. L. Mallett, Found. Phys. 33, 1307 (2003).

Note that it's sixteen years old. Also note that it was discussed contemporaneously here, as well as here and and here. And more. I would hope that any discussion now doesn't just rehash what was said before.
 
Last edited:
pinball1970 said:
I've put this in general for a reason...

And the reason is... you don't want any actual, real, verified, established science to be included in the discussion?

Zz.
 
Tom.G said:
That link resolves to a 5 pg. article:
"Can a circulating light beam produce a time machine?", dated 17 Oct, 2004
https://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0410078.pdf

ZapperZ said:
And the reason is... you don't want any actual, real, verified, established science to be included in the discussion?

Zz.
No. Why would I do that?
 
Vanadium 50 said:
Why do people post links directly to the PDF on arXiv and not the main page (which has the "cited by" link)? It's more work for a less useful answer. In this case, it's not pointing to the Mallett paper but rather the rebuttal. (And because its PDF one can't click on the "refers to" link to get the original paper)

The original paper is R. L. Mallett, Found. Phys. 33, 1307 (2003).

Note that it's sixteen years old. Also note that it was discussed contemporaneously here, as well as here and and here. And more. I would hope
This came out today I thought something else may have been published
 
CNN is not a terribly good source of science journalism. And as for time loops, they seem to be caught up in one, because it seems like every time I turn it on they are saying the latest news in Washington marks "the beginning of the end". :wink:
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: berkeman and russ_watters
Vanadium 50 said:
CNN is not a terribly good source of science journalism. And as for time loops, they seem to be caught up in one, because it seems like every time I turn it on they are saying the latest news in Washington marks "the beginning of the end". :wink:
Ok, mistake, I went for the human story.
Papers rebutting which I could not access and my search on here, feeble.
Not open to further replies thread closed.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: russ_watters
  • #10
pinball1970 said:
No. Why would I do that?

Exactly! And your reason for posting in the GD forum is... ? You still haven't offered any.

Otherwise, you would have posted this in the proper forum that engages in actual physics content.

Zz.
 
  • #11
pinball1970 said:
Ok, mistake, I went for the human story.
Papers rebutting which I could not access and my search on here, feeble.
Not open to further replies thread closed.

[separate post]
This came out today I thought something else may have been published
Yeah, the article is a little odd -- it's about 90% human interest story and very thin on even discussing the science at all. And it appears to be in the Travel section. Given the age of the paper, I don't see why CNN chose now to publish the story or what the point of the story even is. CNN is bad at science, but this is worse than normal, even for them.

Sure, we can close this.