Time travel using laser technology

Join the discussion
Ask a follow-up here, or get your own question answered by working scientists, mathematicians and engineers — people, not an autocomplete.
Real named experts · corrections over time · the nuance an AI answer skips
Sign up Log in
10 replies · 2K views
pinball1970
Gold Member
2025 Award
Messages
3,852
Reaction score
6,173
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
 
Physics news on Phys.org
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:
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
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.
 

Similar threads

Graduate Time Travel using the gravitational field of a circulating light beam
  • Chaos' lil bro Order
  • · Replies 28 ·
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
28