A film about Ronald Mallett

I plan on seeing him again on October 25 but I probably won't have the easy access I had with him
when I first spoke with him as he is more famous now.
 
Additional information can also be obtained by
a google search for Ronald L. Mallett

/ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif
 
I notice the corresponding dates here Pamela. Are you going to be talking to Dr. Mallett after CERN has fired?

I can see Spike Lee using that as a form of release date (on or around) to be releasing the movie.

I have already supposed the the great Dr. Mallett is on no more than a capital infusion project for the last year and all that I am asking is for you to consider this in your further adventures where it concerns the gentleman.

I suppose will not be getting more papers in answer to Ken Olum and Allen Everett, but if you have a moment could you inquire with him and ask if he will be releasing any more papers in the future?

Thanks.
 
Kanigo,

Here's the problem with Mallett's theory as given in a paper by Ken Olum and Allen Everett responding to Mallett's paper:

Can a circulating light beam produce a time machine?
Ken D. Olum and Allen Everett
Institute of Cosmology, Department of Physics and Astronomy, Tufts University, Medford, MA 02155
.
Abstract
.
In a recent paper, Mallett found a solution of the Einstein equations in which closed timelike curves (CTC’s) are present in the empty space outside an infinitely long cylinder of light moving in circular paths around an axis. Here we show that, for physically realistic energy densities, the CTC’s occur at distances from the axis greater than the radius of the visible universe by an immense factor. We then show that Mallett’s solution has a curvature singularity on the axis, even in the case where the intensity of the light vanishes. Thus it is not the solution one would get by starting with Minkowski space and establishing a cylinder of light.
.
[snip]
.
Conclusion
.
Thus it appears that the closed timelike curves appearing in [1] are the result of starting with a pathological spacetime instead of Minkowski space. There is no reason to believe on the basis of that CTC’s could be produced in the laboratory, even if we had sufficient technology to control a density of electromagnetic radiation so large as to have measurable gravitational effects.
.
K.D.O. was supported in part by the National Science Foundation.
Click to expand...

The paper can be found on ArXiv: http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/0410/0410078v1.pdf

BTW: The term "pathological spacetime" indicates a spacetime that doesn't exist or is idealized to fit the scenario. When they state in the abstract "even in the case where the intensity of the light vanishes" they're indicating that the full implication in Mallett's math is that if you could manage to actually make the CTC with his method it would persist even if he turned the light source off .

There have a few non-published criticisms of Mallett's paper but not many. He hasn't really caught the attention of other researchers with his paper. Other than looking at the math, which appears to be flawed, the main objections have been 1) that the paper indicates a weak energy limit violation which requires negative energy to overcome, 2) it violates Hawking's Chronology Protection Conjecture and doesn't adequately address that issue. Mallett himself has backed away from, at least, the "slow light" part of his theory. He, himself, has found it to be incorrect.
 
Yeah, I got the concept Darby maybe I should have thrown in a ...



Thanks though.
 
Kanigo,

Yeah, I got the concept Darby maybe I should have thrown in a ...
Click to expand...

No need for the winkie. Your original post made it clear enough that you had done some homework on the Mallett paper. I just added some specifics by referencing Olum-Everett.
 
No, It has nothing to do with CERN. It is just a date he is going to be somewhere that I will have the ability to talk to him again and listen to him talk about his theories. I don't care how anyone else feels about him I think he is interesting. No big deal just something I have planned in the future.

People learn things everyday Darby. Do you really think that will be the extent of his theories?
That he will never learn any more or come up with anything further??
 
Which was really my point , If you get the chance to ask him would he respond to that paper?

Or will he be releasing new papers any time in the future was all I was asking.

Don't get me wrong , He has had financial backing and I assume will have the capacity to carry on with some research.

That is why I made the point that he is on a funding mission.

I would just like to hear where he is deciding to turn his energies.

(I personally wish he would turn his energies toward quantum computing)
 
People learn things everyday Darby. Do you really think that will be the extent of his theories? That he will never learn any more or come up with anything further??
Click to expand...

Now who is being disrespectful?

I saw nothing in Darby's response that would imply these things. So why are you trying to put them in his mouth? If not to be disrespectful?

RMT
 
Do you really think that will be the extent of his theories?
Click to expand...

In a word, yes. That will be the extent of his theories.

I'm sure that he's a wonderful teacher at UCONN. But as a research scientist he hasn't produced much in the way of research. He received his PhD from Penn State in 1973, 35 years ago. During the intervening time he's published two major research papers and co-authered two papers,

1. "Weak gravitational field of the electromagnetic radiation in a ring laser", Phys. Lett. A 269, 214 (2000)

2. "The gravitational field of a circulating light beam", Foundations of Physics 33, 1307 (2003)].

3. M.P. Silverman and R.L. Mallett, "Cosmic degenerate matter: a possible solution to the problem of missing mass," Class. Quantum Grav. 18, L37 (2001);

4. M. P. Silverman and R. L. Mallett, "Dark matter as a cosmic Bose-Einstein condensate and possible superfluid", Gen. Rel. Grav. 34, 633 (2002)].

(from Mallett's personal CV)

That's all of it. He's now 63 years old and in thirty-five years of teaching he's published four major papers. And the second one above was not well received by the referees.

Here's a comparison relative to research by another physics professor who has also published a time machine paper, Frank Tipler. He received his PhD from the University of Maryland in 1976, three years after Mallett:

PAPERS:
58 papers in refereed journals, including 2 (single authored) papers in Physical Review Letters, 8 papers in Nature (6 of these single authored), and 1 (single authored) in Science. The papers which I personally consider the most important are
1. Rotating Cylinders and the Possibility of Global Causality Violation, Physical Review D9, 2203-2206 (1974).
2. Causality Violation in Asymptotically Flat Spacetimes, Physical Review Letters, 37, 879-882 (1976).
3. Energy Conditions and Spacetime Singularities, Physical Review, D17, 2521-2528 (1978).
4. General Relativity and Conjugate Ordinary Differential Equations, Journal of Differential Equations, 30, 165-174 (1978).
5. General Relativity, Thermodynamics, and the Poincar� Cycle, Nature 280, 203-205 (1979).
6. Extraterrestrial Intelligent Beings Do Not Exist, Quarterly Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society, 21, 267-28 (1980).
7. Interpreting the Wave Function of the Universe, Physics Reports, 137, 231-275 (1986).
8. Traveling to the Other Side of the Universe, Journal of the British Interplanetary Society 49, 313-318 (1996).
9. How Far Out Must We Go to Get Into the Hubble Flow? Astrophysical Journal 511, 546-549 (1999).
10. Intelligent Life in Cosmology, International Journal of Astrobiology 2, 141-148 (2003).
11. Structure of the World from Pure Numbers, Reports on Progress in Physics 68, 897-964 (2005).
12. The Star of Bethlehem: a Type Ia/Ic Supernova in the Andromeda Galaxy? Observatory 125, 168-173 (2005).

(from Tipler's personal CV)

And just as a further comparison, Albert EInstein would be considered the "father" of time travel theories. By 1940, 35 years after receiving his PhD, he'd published over 280 papers in peer reviewed professional journals.

There's no comparison.
 
Which was really my point , If you get the chance to ask him would he respond to that paper?
Or will he be releasing new papers any time in the future was all I was asking.
Don't get me wrong , He has had financial backing and I assume will have the capacity to carry on with some research.
That is why I made the point that he is on a funding mission.
I would just like to hear where he is deciding to turn his energies.
(I personally wish he would turn his energies toward quantum computing)
Click to expand...


The "meet and greet" is usually afterwards so I will probably get to hear whatever his latest is
first before I ask him any questions. Is there anything else you want me to try to ask him?
 
I hope I have the chance to see it over here.

2) it violates Hawking's Chronology Protection Conjecture and doesn't adequately address that issue.
Click to expand...
It doesn't need to. /me points to his sig.
 
"There have a few non-published criticisms of Mallett's paper but not many. He hasn't really caught the attention of other researchers with his paper. Other than looking at the math, which appears to be flawed, the main objections have been 1) that the paper indicates a weak energy limit violation which requires negative energy to overcome, 2) it violates Hawking's Chronology Protection Conjecture and doesn't adequately address that issue. Mallett himself has backed away from, at least, the "slow light" part of his theory. He, himself, has found it to be incorrect."

I think you misunderstand Hawking's Chronology Protection Conjecture - it says that, even if time travel were possible, the universe would erect barriers to make it not possible, so that the universe didn't unravel its own existence. This conjecture does not specify an exhaustive list of obstacles the universe might so raise. So saying Mallet "doesn't adequately address that issue" misses the point - unless you're claiming that because Hawking says all time travel is impossible, Mallet must be wrong. But Mallet is claiming that time travel is indeed possible, which, if it was, would either show Hawking was wrong, or that Mallet figured out a way of outwitting the universe on this. So Hawking v. Mallet is really mooted on this point.

More on my take on the Chronology Protection Conjecture in my fictitious "Chronology Protection Case," which you can read about here or listen to a radio play of, for free, over here about halfway down the page.
 
I think you misunderstand Hawking's Chronology Protection Conjecture - it says that, even if time travel were possible, the universe would erect barriers to make it not possible, so that the universe didn't unravel its own existence. This conjecture does not specify an exhaustive list of obstacles the universe might so raise. So saying Mallet "doesn't adequately address that issue" misses the point - unless you're claiming that because Hawking says all time travel is impossible, Mallet must be wrong. But Mallet is claiming that time travel is indeed possible, which, if it was, would either show Hawking was wrong, or that Mallet figured out a way of outwitting the universe on this. So Hawking v. Mallet is really mooted on this point.
Click to expand...

I wasn't opining. I listed the two major criticisms that have been given in the few papers that have responded to Mallett's original paper. There's really not much more to add because there hasn't been any particular interest shown by the physics community in his paper.
 
"People learn things everyday Darby. Do you really think that will be the extent of his theories?
That he will never learn any more or come up with anything further??"

Your assessment of the growth of knowledge is completely right, Pamela. A lot of people suffer from what I call "never dogmatism" - the view that we will never know this or that. But the history of science abounds with examples to the contrary. One of my favorite examples was August Comte's view, expressed in the late 1840s, that one thing we will never know anything about is the chemical composition of stars. A few years later, of course, the science of spectroscopy was developed. More on this in my 1988 Mind at Large: Knowing in the Technological Age. Best of luck with your work with Mallett.
 
Back
Top