Talk:Ronald Mallett

How far has he proceed?

How far has he proceed to build the thing?

I second the request. What's the current status of his project? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.67.35.214 (talk) 16:09, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

87.074%. - 82.16.12.184 (talk) 12:26, 4 November 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.226.212.91 (talk)

It's been nearly four years since the Discovery channel special on his project. What's going on with it?173.58.53.212 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:56, 15 January 2011 (UTC).

Another two years and nothing. Is Ron Mallet still involved with this project?173.58.96.84 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:44, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

How Many Ts!?!

Wait a second! I wrote the article, but I'm not sure: Is his last name spelled with one or two Ts? I just noticed that I had it both ways!! I think it's one T. I'm going to check on that, but if you do it before I do, then that's good, too. Steveo2 I wish someone would mention his interview on Coast to Coast with Art Bell.

Two Ts according to his homepage. I fixed the image caption. Rl 11:20, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

One T according to the cover of his book (just read, hence reading this page), but I guess a web page is more accurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.155.193.120 (talk) 17:30, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Good grief, the man's an academic. Check Google Scholar for his published papers. The only time you find it with one "t" is when he is referenced by someone who is not Ronald Malle tt. JohndanR (talk) 14:29, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Vandal

How can you report 69.248.78.78 for vandalism?

Age Information

The age information on the page is not mathematically correct. Since the info is also uncited, We should work toward finding citations for the claims about the year of his father's death, the year he earned his Ph.D. and definitely cite his motivation for working on time travel. As far as I'm concerned, The info should probably be removed until it can be properly substantiated according to WP:BLP. I will tackle this unless someone else has good reason why it should remain.Pihanki 02:58, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

No, it's proof he will succeed, and that he's come back already and fiddled with the order of events. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.145.109.212 (talk) 20:52, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

No Photo

A photo of the man should be there.there is on avaailable on the site listed on the page.<http://www.physics.uconn.edu/~mallett/main/main.htm>

A photo has been added. The photo was provided by himself by my request. Also the date of birth was incorrect according to Ronald L Mallett in his email message sent to me. I corrected the date of birth--Senthi (talk) 02:48, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Historical Credits/References?

I don't feel qualified to update the article, but for those maintaining this article, I think it should also mention Gödel_metric, as everyone seems to stand on the shoulders of giants and this 1949 discovery seems, by far, to be the earliest solution of GR producing CTC's. Kurt Gödel was Einstein's commute buddy at Princeton (walking), and contributed this discovery to an entry on Einstein in a volume on the 20th Century's Greatest Philosophers. This is detailed in: "A World Without Time: The Forgotten Legacy of Godel and Einstein" by Palle Yourgrau.

Tactless

This page is a slap in the fact to Dr. Mallet. Half of it objects to his work. Put more info about his work and start a new page for the objections. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Radicalcentrist1990 (talk • contribs) 04:24, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

How is it a slap in the "face" of Dr. Mallet? He is supposed to be a scientist, so he can deal with objections to his work, as that goes with the territory of being a scientist. No new page has to be added. In fact, the objections page should be expanded. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tardyon (talk • contribs) 21:45, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

It's not a slap, if his theories are bordering on quackary. Everything he propose(s/d) is not based on reality and has been disproven by other physicists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.214.153.89 (talk) 22:17, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the OP. The article is clearly full of POV and not encyclopedic. 91.49.228.143 (talk) 02:44, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

What can light do for time travel, versus a weapon?

I cannot see, from the article's description of his work, without more article details, how it is that things can be made to go back in time, as Mallett's work is described in his appearances on YouTube clips of Discovery Channel / TLC shows. Conventional energy fields, can only accelerate matter, up to speeds approaching the speed of light, which causes their time to lorentzian "contract" to slower rates. No? Particle accelerators, for example, use electromagnetic waves in the radio regieme to only accelerate particles upto speeds all slower than light, and so they "tick" slower at the relativistic speeds. Like muons that normally last microseconds, but can last many times longer when nearing the speed of light, before decaying. Matter-energy-space configurations can only affect matter-energy-space configurations into slower time frames of reference, all below the speed of light, or at the speed of light for photons related to the matter-energy-space configurations. LoneRubberDragon (talk) 18:47, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

The only thing I can see coming from this research, as it is supericially described, is as a weapons platform, from the university research. The entire set of experiment descriptions seem to rely on a high intensity loop or line of light, created by either slowing light down with high synthetic refraction indexes, or "optical circulation cylinders", or even strong gravitational fields like a black hole. These would not allow time travel into the past, as far as I can discern, but such "optical superconductor / supercapacitor" could allow the storage of some amount of light for later release. LoneRubberDragon (talk) 18:47, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I ran across the idea of optical superconductors back in 1996, and wonder where it is currently, myself. What are the current potentials for making optical (near-/virtual-/actual-)superconductors? That is, what is the potential for making a material field capable of concentrating and holding a line, ring, or sphere of light, with virtually zero loss of light, and also have an extremely high capacity for light storage density? It would definitiely require a transparent material that doesn't scatter light, have a graded index of refraction to accumulate light from some light source outside of the field into a spatial light attractor pattern, with possible coherent radiation during the nonlinear accumulation and photon redirection into the photon attractor path, and linear (not nonlinear optics) in the core, or even general photon-quantized properties to remain photo path storage stable, as the density of the light being stored increases. Fiber optics seem to allow a weak form of this, but the energy stored dissipates in microseconds, as heat, for even the most transparent of fiber optics, in a loop. A good optical superconductor, if possible, would asymptotically coalece light onto a single path, and store the light on that circulating path for hours or days, to have some level of utility as a weapon or energy storage device. LoneRubberDragon (talk) 21:55, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Such a structure would potentially allow vast amounts of light energy to be stored with very little loss, and can produce a non-radioactive method of releasing vast amounts of stored energy, potentially far exceeding all chemical energy release methods and nuclear energy release methods, depending on the denisty of light achieveable in the optical superconducting structure. As such, a "photon torpedo" of sorts could be achieved with an optical superconductor light capture structure. Depending on the deisgn, it could be *very* light weight to energy capacity ratio, compared to some energy release modes like chemical bonds, and could have a very directed to isotropic radiation pattern of vaporization by design, and release no radioactive materials. LoneRubberDragon (talk) 21:55, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

If light cannot be converged onto a fixed cycle with graded refraction index optics, then a stimulated emmission mode could be placed on the path, and excited in order to create a standing wave laser attractor on the path for photons that are stimulated on the optical superconducting axis ring. A self contained laser with no output, that accumulates standing waves of energy on the optical cyclic axis / or a spherical membrane for a sphere design. LoneRubberDragon (talk) 23:45, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

A remote, but plausible method I can envision, that does presumably exist as a method, is to use a small black hole to create an optical superconducting analog. Imagine dropping micro mirrors and light pulses, or energized molecules designed to radiate light tangentially into the event horizon, in order to pump light energy into the photon sphere of light around the black hole. One could store some finite amount of megawatt hours of light energy, within the photon sphere for some finite amount of orbital time, depending on how carefully the light can be pumped into the long light orbit period "saddle-point-zone" of the balck hole photon sphere. But the orbits of light around a very-small black hole might be too small and so critically unstable according to some mathematical views. But if achieveable theoretically, once pumped full of light energy, one could drop into the "charged photon torpedo" a large amount of reflecting materials en-masse, into the the black hole, in order to scatter or direct the light in the temporary photon sphere back out, in a giant blast of energy. For a simple isotropic scattering infalling material, some signifigant portion of the stored orbiting photon sphere of light can presumably be scattered back outwards. If the black hole is magnetic, and can be contained in a magnetic control shell, then the energized black hole can be just one theoretical method to deliver massive amounts of pure energy to a target (as well as the black hole core). LoneRubberDragon (talk) 00:04, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ergosphere

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole#Ergosphere

http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s6-05/6-05.htm

http://www.gothosenterprises.com/black_holes/static_black_holes.html

I've also heard of experiments slowing light down to a crawl, with synthetic near infinite index of refraction analogues. If capable of being saturated with enormous amounts of light energy trapped in a column, when the column's capacity to slow light is turned off, or disintegrated, all of that light energy would be released in one blast, also. If it is an experiment, however, that has only a limited capability to store light before going nonlinear and incapable of trapping intense light, then it would not serve well as a time delay compression optical "superconductor". LoneRubberDragon (talk) 00:04, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

But if a large volume could be made to slow light to 17 [m/s], as Lene Hau has achieved for a beam of light, compared to 299,792,458 [m/s], then in a 1 [m] block of this apparatus, which is a 3.3 [nsec] of vacuum light path time, could store 17.6 million times more light than a vacuum, or 58 [msec] of light. One could pump 17.6 million 3.3 [nsec] high-energy pulses of laser light into the apparatus, for 58 [msec], turn the field off, or otherwise disrupt it, and release all 17.6 million light pulses, with great devestation. If light could be slowed a million times more than that, it gives one time to charge it with even more light, at a more lesiurely rate, over an hour, and still have 15 hours left to transport the apparatus before "activation". But time travel? Really! LoneRubberDragon (talk) 19:06, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Definitely a neat "Star Wars" project, closer to the photon torpedos of Star Trek. LoneRubberDragon (talk) 19:12, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lene_Hau

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_Defense_Initiative

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_Defense_Initiative#Directed-energy_weapon_.28DEW.29_programs

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_Defense_Initiative#Chemical_laser

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tactical_High_Energy_Laser

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon_torpedo#Photon_torpedoes

A very weak amorphous structured crude analog version of this, would be an ideal black body crystaline material, that can be heated to tens of thousands of degrees without breaking its bonds, storing the energy in electron resonances. It could be transported to another location, where the crystal is broken, releasing heat and the potential photonic energy from the disturbance of the resonant structure. However, it is not traditionally optical effects, as it relies on absorbtion and reradiation of kinetic energies, and some light energy, to store energy in molecular chained time delays as "slowed light". And as a black body, it would generally cool very quickly through surface radiation. An ideal optical superconductor structure, full of light energy, would appear virtually black from the outside, even though it's internal state is closer to millions of degrees in/of light (and not kinetic) energy storage. The ideal black body would only have tens of thousands of degrees in/of light/kinetic energy storage, and a normal black body like charcoal or stone, would only have a few thousand degrees in/of light/kinetic energy storage. And being non-optical to a great extent, the black bodies, in general, would be predominantly kinetic energy thermal energy stores. As such, size makes the black body energy store scale up, like the sun, where a "photon" from the core can be said to take millions of years to escape the sun through diffusion through the mass. Definitely not superconducting, optically speaking, or even index of refraction slowed light, but absorbtion-reemission time-delay storage. LoneRubberDragon (talk) 21:55, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slow_light

way over my head

Too much for my small brain to take in. But I would say whoever gets a time machine working would be infinitely powerful. So govs around the world must be or must have been beavering away on this for some time. It makes sense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.193.29.27 (talk) 22:35, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Dangers

The sun goes estimated 240 km/sec and the earth rotates around constantly around the sun,wich also has enourmous distances. The math behind this is enormous. Anyone ever inventing a time machine should make it capable of traveling and landing from space to earth. The speed it takes could break the machine apart. The risc is even when a time machine would be possible, the space between this time and the other is enormous. The time machine and the route it takes could break apart, even when a small timegap would be possible the small timegap to only give a message could break because of the huge distance,considering it would be constantly stretching out over time.

If the machine would be possible and turned on , any future traveler to now would only allow 1 traveler at the beginning and stepping in and out of the machine at the same time would cause danger like 1000 of the same person going in or out of the time machine at once, therefore every time the time machine would be on , the time needs to be noted,to allow only 1 future traveler or message trough in time. For example I go in the door and out the door at the same time would be a bad idea,and I would probably get stuck in time. Also the problem how to control this time machine , going to the exact time you want,for example that the time machine works but brings you instead of 1 year further/back 10 year . Going into the time and going back would be like going to 2 places in the same line example: collission with self, so would need build new time machine to go back,or needing to avoid this somehow.

--85.151.35.218 (talk) 12:12, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

The Core

Hi, had some ideas that might enable time travel on a limited (ms) scale proportional to the path delay relevant to high frequency trading. I have emailed Mallett and others but as yet no reply. As this has national security implications I hope that it helps that my intentions are benign and the physics are far more relevant as is determining the existence of something in the Earth's core which up until now has had no direct evidence. Also working on a larger scale experiment but am keeping this quiet for now until I get this physics paper compiled. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.3.100.25 (talk) 07:18, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi, my English is not good.I'm sorry if this is causing you trouble. But I really want to get Mallett's email to talk to him a few things, now he is my only hope. If you read the message please give me Mallett's email or how can I get it, please.I sincerely thank you in advance... MO16105 (talk) 11:23, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Untitled

Hello Ronald I was just wondering how far you can go back in time? The reason for that is I want to save my marriage and that would be the only thing I can do is to go back in time and save it from the start. If you respond that would be awesome!

Sincerely Bradley — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pandabearr56 (talk • contribs) 06:02, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Don’t look back once cracked u have the access to go back and change the things like u do 184.146.125.40 (talk) 08:07, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Time machine

When you will give us time mach@ 106.51.119.124 (talk) 13:29, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

New section means 106.51.119.124 (talk) 13:48, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

When you will give time travel machine

@ 106.51.119.124 (talk) 13:45, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

New section

Add a section break. Select where you want a new section to begin. Go to Layout > Breaks. The types of section breaks are highlighted on the Layout tab. 106.51.119.124 (talk) 14:02, 5 February 2024 (UTC)