Art Bell

All Episodes

Previous Next

Oct. 6, 2015 - Art Bell

02:22:36

Art Bell MITD - Professor Ronald Mallett Time Travel

Participants

Main voices

32:53

prof ronald mallett

01:29:22

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Show episode speakers

Speaker	Time	Text
art bell ▲ ● ▼		High desert and American Southwest.
		I bid you all good evening, good morning, good afternoon, wherever you may be in the world's time zone.
		Each and every single one of them covered like a blanket by this program, Midnight in the Desert Worldwide.
		Great to be here with you.
		Two rules on our program.
		That's all we have.
		Two rules.
		No bad language and only one call per show.
		That said, let's look at a little news.
		We're going to talk about time travel tonight with Professor Ronald Mallet.
		It is my favorite topic, as you know.
		I love time travel.
		I really love time travel.
		The whole concept of it, I would love to travel in time myself.
		God, I would love that.
		I've followed it.
		I think I've read everything and seen every movie that one could see about time travel.
		And it is intense.
		Let me first give you something.
		You can go and see at artbell.com because it's just breaking news from Peru.
		A Peru teen has been rushed to the hospital screaming for the devil after becoming possessed.
		A Peruvian teenager has claimed that she became possessed by the devil after playing with a Ouija board using a mobile phone app.
		Patricia Cuispi from Chusica, that's in the Lima province of Peru, ended up possessed by the devil spirits after using a mobile phone version of the board game.
		Now, I'm inviting you to artbell.com not just to read this with me, but to see the video of this young lady possessed.
		Shocking footage filmed at the local hospital shows this young lady thrashing and convulsing while screaming for her mother and shouting out at the devil, let her go.
		Friends of the teenagers say they have downloaded the app over the weekend for, you know, a bit of fun and had joked around about trying to communicate with the spirit world.
		Upon returning home, her parents noticed that she seemed unwell and eventually called an ambulance when she began convulsing and foaming at the mouth.
		Thinking that their daughter may have eaten something or taken a drug that would cause an allergic reaction, they of course contacted her friends who told them about the Ouija board.
		In the video from the hospital that you can see at artbell.com, medical staff can be seen trying to restrain the young lady who is convulsing violently and struggling as she shouts 666, followed by, let me go, let me go.
		In another segment, she can be heard shouting, please give me my phone.
		And mom, these doctors don't know what they're doing.
		Take me home.
		Ouija boards.
		I told you about Ouija boards, didn't I?
		All right.
		Looking at the news briefly, the mother of a gunman who killed nine people and then himself at an Oregon community college allowed her troubled son to have guns, acknowledged in online posts that he struggled with autism.
		But she didn't know he was potentially violent.
		Well, you don't always know that somebody is potentially violent.
		Right?
		The top U.S. commander in Afghanistan is saying that he's recommending that President Obama change his mind and keep more than 1,000 U.S. troops in the country beyond 2016.
		Just now, days after a deadly U.S. airstrike mistakenly struck a hospital, Doctors Without Borders hospital, in fact, during fierce fighting in the north, the Doctors Without Borders people are calling it a war crime.
		I think the Pentagon is choosing other wording.
		And this from theanomalous.com that has got to be listening to the show.
		Hello, guys.
		Nick Redfern discusses Dr. Jacob's new book, Walking Among Us, The Alien Plan to Control Humanity.
		A tale not of abductions, but about how abductees are allegedly being used to assist alien human hybrids whose role it is to infiltrate human society.
		So, we read stories about abductees assisting the hybrids in the real world, driving them about, feeding them, teaching them how to dress and blendy and, you know, at baseball games, Kmart, and the Pete's parlor.
		It's a scenario that Jacobs himself admits leads to a ridiculous conclusion.
		But in part two of his overview of the book, Redfern points out the similarities between these hybrids and the men in black, which Redfern has studied extensively both, says Redfern, have a fascination for pens, are awkward around food, and often look sickly.
		Redfern has a good point.
		So obviously, other people are putting together the very interesting coincidences between Dr. Jacobs and what he's saying and Nick Redfern.
		I sure did.
		Ding, ding, ding, all the way, right?
		One more thing.
		The Russians are helping us to death in Syria.
		What the Russians are actually hitting with their airstrikes are our CIA-trained anti-Assad rebels.
		So the fireworks fall all over Syria.
		And as I mentioned, they're helping us to death.
		They were supposed to go in there and kill some ISIS characters for us, and they didn't do that.
		Well, as I mentioned, it is my favorite topic of all time.
		So coming up, Professor Ronald L. Mallet received his B.S., M.S., and Ph.D. in physics from Penn State University.
		He worked for United Technologies from 1973 to 5 and in 1975 joined the physics faculty at the University of Connecticut in Stores, where he is currently a research professor of physics.
		Professor Mallet has published numerous papers on black holes and cosmology in professional journals.
		His breakthrough research on time travel has been featured extensively in media around the world, and his published memoir, Time Traveler, has been translated into several languages.
	Award-winning filmmaker Spike Lee has written a script for a feature film of the memoir.
	So coming up in a moment, Professor Ronald Mallet and Time Travel from the High Desert, I'm Mark Bell, and this is Midnight in the Desert.
unidentified		We'll be right back.
		Explanation Dali Lashman to the Air of the Grand.
		Take a walk on the wild side of midnight from the Kingdom of Nigh.
		This is Midnight in the Desert with Art Bell.
		Please call the show at 1-952-225-5278.
		That's 1-952.
		Call Art.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		You know, everybody in their lifetime should take a moment out from the United States, if that's where you are, or Canada.
unidentified		And you follow them.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		And actually go to a country where they turn back time.
unidentified		Completely.
unidentified		Yeah.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		You know, they don't really turn back time, but when you get there, you feel as though it has been turned back.
		And so if you get the opportunity to go to a third world country, you know, somewhere friendly, for me it was the Philippines.
		When you get there, it clearly feels like time has been turned back.
		Now, of course, that is beginning to change.
		And Asia, the entire Asian continent, is beginning to catch up with the rest of the world.
		So it's not quite as it was, but you still get that feeling that you're back in time.
		And time is what we're going to talk about tonight with Professor Ronald Mellett.
		Welcome to Midnight in the Desert, Professor.
prof ronald mallett ▲ ● ▼		Well, thank you very much, Art.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Great to have you.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		And I understand you're back in Connecticut.
prof ronald mallett ▲ ● ▼		That's correct.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		And three hours ahead in time.
prof ronald mallett ▲ ● ▼		That's exactly right.
unidentified		It's 12.15 for me right now.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Actually, 12.13 and 13 seconds, Professor.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		You said you had a lot of clocks around you.
prof ronald mallett ▲ ● ▼		Yes, that is correct.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		All right.
		So it has been so long.
		When did we talk last?
prof ronald mallett ▲ ● ▼		It was quite a while ago.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		You were still like a teenager, right?
prof ronald mallett ▲ ● ▼		Not quite.
		But I had done my research, but it was quite a while ago.
		I mean, my breakthrough happened at the turn of the century, and I think that it was just not long after that that you had interviewed me.
unidentified		Right.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		All right.
		So let us begin at the beginning, because so many who are listening now will not have heard you.
		It's obviously important to ask you why you decided to get even involved with, I mean, here you are, a theoretical physicist beginning to actually toy with the mechanics of time travel.
		Why did you decide to become involved in time travel research?
prof ronald mallett ▲ ● ▼		Well, it has to do with my father.
		He was the center of my life, and he was bigger than life.
		He was a television repairman in the Bronx.
		I was the oldest of four children, and my father had, he had served in the Second World War.
		He was a battlefield medic, and he used the GI Bill to go to a two-year technical school after he got out of the service.
		And he was very good at his job.
		In fact, he was so good that he actually repaired a television set of people who were celebrities in New York at the time, like Walter Mathow.
		I actually have an autographed picture of Walter Mathau, thanking my father, for fixing his television set.
		And the thing is, is that even though he worked very hard, I mean, sometimes two jobs, he had a lot of time for his family.
		And that was something that made him endearing to all of us.
		And he paid a lot of attention to me.
		He gave me scientific toys like gyroscopes and crystal radio sets.
		And he loved to read.
		So, of course, that I love to read.
		And the thing is, is that he looked like he was very robust and healthy.
		And we didn't really know, at least the children, my mother might have known, but he had a weak heart.
		And he died of a massive heart attack.
		And he was only 33 years old.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Oh, my, 33.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		And at that point, how old were you?
prof ronald mallett ▲ ● ▼		I was 10 years old.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Oh, God.
prof ronald mallett ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, and the thing is, is that prior to that, I had been a rather happy kid and pretty gregarious.
		After that, it was like the world was destroyed for me.
		I mean, for me, it was like the death of Superman.
		And I went from being a happy kid to actually a very upset, depressed, and lonely kid.
		And I was just in a fog.
		I mean, I really didn't care whether I lived or died.
		And this went on for about a year.
		I buried myself in my books and science fiction books in particular.
		And then I came across, when I was 11, I came across the book that changed my life.
		It was actually a classics illustrated version of H.G. Wells' classic The Time Machine.
		And something about just the cover of The Classics Illustrated spoke to me, and when I read the first page of it, it said, scientific people know very well that time is just a kind of space, and we can move forward and backward in time just as we can in space.
		When I said that, I thought, oh, this is unbelievable.
		This means that it might be possible to have a machine, a time machine that could go back into the past.
		And my imagination immediately took flight.
		I said, this means that if I had this kind of a machine, I could go back and see my father again and tell him what was going to happen and maybe change things.
		And then that was the beginning of an obsession for me.
		I mean, I even went to the point of my mother had kept the old radio and television parts that my father had had.
		And I looked at the, there was a picture on this Classics Illustrated of their idea of what a time machine might look like.
		And it had hoops and everything like that.
		So I put old bicycle tires and everything together with this stuff.
		And when I plugged it in, nothing happened, of course.
		But the thing is, is that I really, I mean, I was disappointed, but I wasn't discouraged because I remembered that it said that scientific people know very well.
		So I thought maybe that meant that I had to know something about science.
		Although at that point, I didn't know exactly what I would need to know.
		But that would come just a little bit later on because I was wondering.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Let me ask you a quick question, particularly with your reference to your father.
		As I mentioned, I have read just about everything on time travel, as I guess you have, and I've seen all the movies.
		And the movie that had to have affected you would have been Frequency.
		I'm sure you saw Frequency, right?
prof ronald mallett ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, as an adult, yes, yes.
		Of course.
		And it's one of my favorite movies.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Mine too.
prof ronald mallett ▲ ● ▼		Because it actually speaks to the theme that's the core of my life.
		And so, yeah, that is one of my favorite movies.
		You're right.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, I knew it had to be.
		And even for me, you know, the ham radio part of it was a big connection.
		But that brought my wife to tears.
		That was a very, very, very touching movie.
prof ronald mallett ▲ ● ▼		Oh, it was.
		It really was.
		And the thing is, is that in that case, he didn't have really control of it, I mean, except for the fact that it was communication through the ham radio set.
		But the phenomenon that was causing it was sun distortion.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		I mean, that was...
art bell ▲ ● ▼		In fact, the opening scene, the northern lights were blazing.
prof ronald mallett ▲ ● ▼		Right, right.
		And the thing is, is that for me, one of the things is that, and I think that this is what differentiates a lot of science fiction movies and also science fiction books that made H.G. Wells' work so different was the fact that he posited a device, a machine.
		You know, there actually is other early time travel books.
		One of them is, in fact, part of was a Connecticut verse.
		It was called Connecticut, Yankee, and King Arthur's Court by Mark Twain.
		But there, once again, it was an accidental thing that caused it.
		And for me, it was the notion of control.
		And for me, I think that that had two different levels involved with it, because death is something that seems like it's out of your control.
		And the fact that there might be some sort of a technical way of controlling nature, and in this particular case of controlling time, that spoke to me.
		And I knew that that was going to have to be, I was going to try to find a way of actually finding a mechanism that might allow me to manipulate time.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Boy, it sure speaks to me, too.
		And I wonder why so many people are so intrigued by the entire concept of time travel.
		If I were to answer that, I would say we are locked in this linear non-stop progression of time, and there seems no relief from it, no escape from it.
		It marches forward.
		We march with it.
		And that's that.
		But people keep imagining being able to go forward or especially go back in time.
		So what's all the intrigue?
		Exactly that, that we're locked up?
prof ronald mallett ▲ ● ▼		No, I think all the intrigue has to do with the fact that we long to be able to go back to, and I mean, who of us has not had something that has happened in our lives, either personally or otherwise, that we would say as a regret, if I could have done this, how would this have turned out for me in my life?
		If I could have prevented this?
		And let me give you an example of something that when I had my breakthrough, I started getting letters and communiques from people literally all over the world.
		And one of them that was one of the most moving to me, which I'll share with you, it came from Germany.
		And this purse, I mean, I learned German when I was in college, but I forgot most of it.
		So the thing is, is that when I got the package and the letter in it, there were graduate students in the department who were from Germany, and I asked one of them if they would translate it for me.
		But in the meantime, there were four pictures that accompanied the letter.
		And the thing is that the pictures told a story.
		In the first picture, it showed a middle-aged couple with a very attractive young woman in the picture.
		And then in the second picture, the young woman is in sort of acute modeling type of poses.
		And then in the third picture, there's a mangled car.
		And in the fourth picture, she's in the coffin.
		And it brought tears to my eyes immediately.
		I mean, I had never seen anything like that.
		And the thing is, is that, so even before I got the letter, I knew what it was, what the story was going on here.
		And then when I got the letter back from the student, sure enough, the letter was from the father of this young woman.
		And he was asking me if he had heard about my work and if it was possible to send a message back to his daughter to warn her or to warn them to warn her about what was going to happen to try to save her life.
		And I was heartbreaking, and I had to tell them that my research is just ongoing and that that wasn't possible.
		But nevertheless, it shows the core of one of the things, I mean, in this very graphic way.
		I mean, I've gotten emails from people who have had a loved one murdered, and they would like to go back and prevent that.
		Or they themselves have been in prison, and they would like to go back and warn themselves about that.
		So I think it has to do with this very, very primal thing of wanting to try to adjust our life.
		And we do speculate that.
		What if I had met this person rather than that person?
		Just idle things like that.
		Or on a more global level, people would have liked to see, actually see Lincoln give the Gettysburg Address.
		Or that's one thing I would like to.
unidentified		Or I love classical music.
prof ronald mallett ▲ ● ▼		I would love to hear and see Chopin actually performing.
		So I think that this is, it's that, I think.
		It's not, I mean, you might say that the longing is there first, and then we realize we're imprisoned rather than the other way around.
		So I think that that's the thing.
		And also even when it comes to the future, I mean, who of us hasn't wondered, you know, we think of all the marvels that we have now, wondering about the future when we might even have things like a cure for cancer, a cure for, you know, AIDS, a cure, you know, what's going to happen.
		And to see also the possibility of changing things if we could know the future and sending information back to us.
		Sometimes people have asked me, well, you know, what would you have a time machine for?
		I mean, obviously, one of the things is my father, but I said, just in a more general sense, suppose we had an early warning device.
		A time machine is an early warning device.
		Imagine if we could send information back to us to warn ourselves of catastrophes and hurricanes and tsunamis and earthquakes, thousands of lives that we could save.
		So I think that that's the intriguing thing about time traveling.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		All right.
		Let's discuss a couple of other aspects of it.
		And those are all really positive.
		And by the way, if I had my dretherers, I've always said this, I would go back and observe the life of Christ.
		I would observe the miracles that are said to have been done by Christ so I could really know, because as you pointed out, death is not under our control.
		What comes after might well be determined about the truth of what happened then?
prof ronald mallett ▲ ● ▼		Absolutely.
		No, seeing Christ is one of the things that I would love to do.
		And we'll come to that later about this notion of what the things that would be so exciting to see and whether it's going to be possible.
		But yes, seeing Christ in that time would be absolutely a wonderful thing to be able to do.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Have you contemplated this, Professor?
		And that is, you mentioned going to the future.
		It would be wonderful.
		Yes, you might bring back a cure for cancer.
		And you might bring back information about what stocks are going to be hot.
		And in that regard, you would disrupt the entire economic everything.
prof ronald mallett ▲ ● ▼		That's potential.
		I mean, the thing is, is that time travel is a much more complex thing than we think about.
		I mean, in other words, the thing that you're talking about actually has a parallel in what's called the so-called grandfather paradox, which is that we travel back in time and do something that could dramatically alter the future and alter our own lives.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		You've thought about this, right?
prof ronald mallett ▲ ● ▼		Oh, I've thought about this a lot.
unidentified		Right.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		What I gave you was sort of an opposite paradox, but it would still be disruptive incredibly to society and to economics.
		But maybe there'd be rules.
		Maybe there'd be time travel rules, Professor.
prof ronald mallett ▲ ● ▼		Well, I don't know about rules, but the thing is, is that the reason why I said potentially is because travel to the past leads to possible paradoxes, and it may not be so simple as just simply bringing back information.
		There might be all sorts of things that happen to the time stream that, in fact, even though you bring it back, you're not bringing it back into this dimension.
		I mean, that's a whole different thing.
		I mean, I don't know whether you want to get into that.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Well, I mean, let's take an example.
		Let's say you did have the ability to travel in time and you went back and you had your dad go and see a heart specialist and the heart attack he was going to have would be prevented.
		Then you would be changing something in this time stream, without a doubt.
		Your dad would be living on.
		It would be a very, very different situation indeed.
		Professor, we're at a breakpoint, so relax.
		We'll come back.
		We've got so much territory to cover.
		Professor Ronald Mallet, a professor of theoretical physicists, professor of theoretical physics, how about that, is my guest.
unidentified		And God, I love this topic.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		I really do.
unidentified		We'll be back.
		Because you know me.
		I'm in you.
		You're in me.
		I want to take your family.
		And if you get hurt, you get hurt.
		By the little things I say.
		I can put that smile back on your face.
		Midnight in the desert doesn't scream calls.
		We trust you, but remember, the NSA, well, you know.
		To call the show, please dial 1-952-225-5278.
		That's 1-952-CARLART.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Professor Ronald Mallet is my guest.
		He is indeed a professor, and that's an interesting question in itself.
		I mean, here he is teaching physics to college students and talking about time travel.
		And I wonder, Professor, how that works out for you from a, I don't know, a professional point of view.
		In other words, I take it you're tenured, so probably that part's okay.
		But I would think there would be some critical comments that come your way every now and then from colleagues.
prof ronald mallett ▲ ● ▼		Well, yeah, I mean, the thing is, is that when I had decided way back when I was 11 that I wanted to build a time machine, even at that early age, I knew people were already concerned about me.
		And so I already was a student enough to realize that I probably shouldn't share the fact that I wanted to build a time machine because that might not lead to consequences that I wanted to have.
		And so I kept it to myself.
		And I pretty much did that throughout my whole career because it was my secret project.
		The thing is, is that what I realized is that, even in college, that I was going to have to do something that was going to relate to it, but not be obvious.
		And that's where Einstein's work in the theory of black holes came in.
		And if you look at all of my publications after I started as a faculty member at the University of Connecticut, they're on cosmology and black holes and topics like that.
		None of them has to do with time travel.
		However, Einstein's work, which we'll go into more detail later, but the thing is that it was key to understanding time.
		So I could understand things like black holes and write papers about it.
		And that would still allow me to study time.
		So that's what I built my career on.
		If I had come to the, during my interview at UConn, if I had said, well, I'm interested in building a time machine, we wouldn't be having this conversation here right now.
		So that was something that I just didn't do.
		And it wasn't until actually at the turn of the century that I had my breakthrough.
		And by that time, I was a tenured full professor.
		And I like to use a really terrible analogy, but being a tenured full professor is very roughly equivalent to being like a made man in the mafia.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		They're probably not going to be wild about you using that analogy, but yes, okay.
prof ronald mallett ▲ ● ▼		You know, you're practically bulletproof.
		And the thing is, is that by that time, when I made my breakthrough, I didn't have to fear anymore.
		So I was able to come out of the time travel closet without fear.
		But once again, since my work was rooted in Einstein's theories of relativity, that provided a sound foundation.
		So when I published my papers, and I should mention that the papers for physicists, people don't realize sometimes how the publication process goes in the sciences, but when you submit a paper for publication, it doesn't just automatically get published.
		It goes to an anonymous referee.
		And they're anonymous for a reason, that because they can be critical without any comeback.
		And the thing is, is that the referee judges whether or not it's scientifically sound, mathematically sound, and it can be accepted or rejected.
		And the thing is, is that I've had, fortunately for me, many more papers accepted than rejected, but I have had both things.
		And that keeps the science at a high level, as a matter of fact.
		So I knew that when I was writing these papers, the later papers, that they were going to have to be scientifically and mathematically sound.
		So the critics that I have within the community are not critical of the physics and mathematics of my work.
		What they're critical about, and I actually agree with them on many of those points, is the technological feasibility of achieving what I want, which is a different statement from whether or not it's mathematically and sound as far as the physics.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Monnie, may I for one second divert your attention?
		We'll come right back here.
		But since you're a theoretical physicist and we haven't talked in all this time, we now have this spooky action at a distance, I believe Einstein called it, quantum entanglement, which is fascinating, impossible stuff.
		And presumably throughout any distance you would care to name, these things flip and flop together once they've become entangled.
		Now, there is kind of a new twist in the entanglement world, if you've done the reading, and I'm certain you have.
		It's called a quantum twisting, in which they find that instead of a full flip or a flop, there can be a kind of a partial one with a twist.
		And the twist in this is that they think that it might be the key to communication at faster than light, in fact, instantaneous communication.
		So I wonder if you have any comment on all of that.
		Or maybe you can help me understand quantum entanglement's abilities in the first place.
		I ask everybody, so if you can't, you can't.
prof ronald mallett ▲ ● ▼		Oh, no.
		I mean, the thing is, is that it was actually known at the beginning of quantum mechanics.
		I mean, it's just within the public imagination fairly recently, but it was actually known way back.
		I mean, when one of the founders of quantum mechanics was a man named Erwin Schrodinger, who came up with a formulation of it back in 1926.
		And he realized that was an aspect of it.
		And it's really not so strange as it sounds.
		I mean, the thing is, is that in quantum mechanics, systems, if they are created together, they're a unit.
		And as far as the mathematics of quantum mechanics is concerned, even when you separate them at a spatial distance, they're still entangled because they were a unit.
		That's the important point.
		It's just not arbitrary, but they had to have been a single unit to begin with.
		So that's actually, and that's used in some small ways in a lot of electronic devices.
		But the thing is, is that it's become much more well known because of the fact that it seems to imply, and one has to be careful, we haven't had communication with it yet.
		Implication, but it is not the same thing.
		And when it comes to relativity, relativity never said that things can't be faster than the speed of light.
		What it said is that you can't send information faster than the speed of light, which is a different thing.
		Because the universe itself actually can expand faster than the speed of light.
		That's something that people aren't aware.
		But once again, that hasn't been done in a controlled way.
		It'll be fascinating if it is, but that's, you know, as I said, it's part of quantum mechanics.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Well, entanglement up until now and what we knew about it wouldn't allow communication.
		But with this new quantum twisting they're talking about, they have hopes that that might allow communication, which would be really, really, really intriguing.
		I don't know if any of this has and or bears on your work in any way, and perhaps not.
		I just wanted to ask you about it, that's all, and get your comments.
prof ronald mallett ▲ ● ▼		Sure.
		No, not directly.
		It doesn't affect my work.
		My work is actually based on manipulating space and time in a different way.
		In fact, the thing that you're talking about actually is not a part of Einstein's general theory of relativity, just part of what is the basis of my work.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		It seemed to just sort of annoy Einstein, and so he called it spooky action.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Anyway, back to...
prof ronald mallett ▲ ● ▼		I mean, you have to realize that the foundation of Einstein's general theory of relativity, it was to solve a problem that was in Newton's theory of gravity.
		In Newton's theory of gravity, it had predicted, and this was over 300 years ago, that gravity could travel faster than the speed of light.
		And Einstein developed a general theory of relativity in order to take care of that particular problem.
		In other words, to make sure that gravity was consistent with the theory of relativity.
		So this notion of instantaneous action at a distance was actually in physics many, many, many years ago.
		It's just that quantum mechanics brings it up in a different form, but it actually has been part of the root of other aspects of physics for a very long time.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Okay, let's go back to what you're doing.
		And you're working with light, and I think you're working with lasers, and I believe that you are building a time machine.
		Now, that's getting way ahead, but I want to let people know that you're not just toying around with ideas.
		You're building hardware, right?
prof ronald mallett ▲ ● ▼		Well, I should say that we would like to build hardware.
		I mean, as you pointed out, I'm a theoretical physicist.
		It's really important to distinguish between theoretical and experimental.
		Of all the various sciences, there is a precise division of labor in physics.
		Chemists and biologists pretty much go back and forth, but in physics, it really is that precise division.
		And Einstein, for example, was a theoretical physicist, and he came up with the notion of equals mc square.
		What people don't realize is that when Einstein developed that equation, neither he nor anyone else knew they it implied that if you have a small bit of matter, you could create an enormous amount of energy.
		The question was technologically, is this possible?
		And even Einstein wasn't sure whether it would be technologically possible to do that, even though the equation says that this is a possibility.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Once he figured that out, Professor, do you think that he's sorry that he didn't bury it?
prof ronald mallett ▲ ● ▼		No, not really.
		I mean, it's much more complex than that.
		It wasn't that you have to remember that when he wrote the letter, the famous letter to Roosevelt, he very much felt that the German scientists were on the verge of developing an atomic weapon.
		And for him, he would have had no problem whatsoever with it having been dropped on the Nazis in Germany at the time.
		He just wouldn't have.
		That's important to keep in mind.
		When he found out that their project wasn't working and that when the bomb was dropped on Japan, that's when he felt a bitterness about it.
		It wasn't about the use of the bomb per se.
		It was just the target of it.
		And that is something that caused him a considerable amount of angst.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		All right.
		Professor, just straight out question.
		Do you believe that time travel is truly possible?
		Not at this instant, perhaps, but ultimately?
prof ronald mallett ▲ ● ▼		Well, not only do I believe it, but time travel to the future has already been done.
		I mean, you have to realize that Einstein developed two theories.
		One was the special theory of relativity, which he developed in 1905.
		And that theory says that time for a moving clock slows down.
		The faster you have a clock move, the more time slows down.
		Now, when I'm talking about a clock, I'm not just talking about a mechanical mechanism.
		Your heart is a clock.
		And that would mean that if you were traveling fast enough, your heart rate would slow down.
		Now, it's important to realize that this doesn't mean that you would feel it.
		You would not notice it, no matter how fast you were traveling.
		It's just like when you're in your car.
		No matter how fast you're going, you don't feel like you're traveling at the high speed.
		But someone who's watching you sees you zip by.
		And it's the same thing here.
		If you're traveling close to the speed of light, they would actually see your heart rate slow down so noticeably that you would not be aging as much as others.
		And that would mean that if you were traveling fast enough, that you could arrive in the future, maybe only being a few hours older, whereas decades could be having been passed for everyone else.
		Now, that actually is a precise prediction of Einstein's theory.
		The technical name for it is time dilation.
		Now, what is important to realize is that this has been verified, not only on the subatomic level, but even on the large-scale level.
		There's this device in Switzerland.
		It's called the Large Hadron Collider.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		I think it's at work right now, isn't it?
prof ronald mallett ▲ ● ▼		Well, right now they're staging, they're renovating it to go to turning it back on.
		But they actually found the particle that they had built the machine for in the first place.
		And a couple of physicists won a Nobel Prize for it.
		It's the so-called God particle, which its real name is the Higgs particle.
		That's what the device was built for.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		I think now they're actually theorizing something smaller than Higgs, right?
prof ronald mallett ▲ ● ▼		Well, there has been a long time that people have been talking about other particles.
		Well, actually, there's been this notion of there's two different types of theories.
		One of them is called supersymmetric theories, in which they say that there are other groups of subatomic particles that are sort of counterparts of the particles that we already know.
		And then there's super string theories, which say that they're trying to explore and say that all of our particles are actually vibrations of these strings in many, many dimensions.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Yes, indeed.
		Professor, may I ask you something?
		And it concerns CERN.
		So just to put everybody's mind at rest, or perhaps not, there are people who theorize that at CERN they may create a black hole.
		Now, I've heard it said that that black hole would be very minor and would blink out very quickly.
		Would you say that you're 100% certain that if that black hole is created, there would be no adverse worldwide possible effects?
prof ronald mallett ▲ ● ▼		Yeah.
prof ronald mallett ▲ ● ▼		One of the things that's important to realize is that when that sort of thing came out, it was part of the hype to get people interested in the Large Hadron Collider.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Yeah.
prof ronald mallett ▲ ● ▼		Seriously.
		Because the thing is, is that people were wondering what is this thing for and how long it's taking 10 years to build this thing, and it's costing billions of dollars to do it.
		And to try to keep those people's interest in it, they were talking about the finite possibility, probability, I should say, of black holes being created.
		Now, you have to realize that this is another aspect of quantum mechanics, and the probability of that was so low that, and let me give you an example of a probability that it's similar to.
		When the atomic scientists of the Manhattan Project were getting ready to set the bomb off, they actually did some calculations and there was a finite probability, you know, that our atmosphere has hydrogen in it, that the fission bomb would cause a fusion of the hydrogen in the atmosphere and turn our entire planet into one gigantic hydrogen bomb.
		That was actually a serious calculation.
		But the probability, when people talk about probabilities, that is a really, really tricky thing.
		It's like the probability, and there is a probability, that the room that you're in right now, all of the molecules in the air will end up on the other side of that room, and you will find yourself in a vacuum.
		And it is a finite probability, but it's so low that it's greater than the age of the universe.
		So when people talk about probabilities, one has to be careful.
		And that's in the case of these black holes that might have formed, the probability of them is just, you know, it's a there.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		All right, let me rephrase it.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Is there a bigger chance that CERN will do something that could affect the whole world than a bigger chance of that than there is of the air leaving half my room?
prof ronald mallett ▲ ● ▼		Pretty much the same.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Really?
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Well, okay.
prof ronald mallett ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, I mean, you know, really, I mean, the thing is, is that there's a probability that when you calculate, and it depends on what it is that you're Talking about the probability of.
		Yeah, something strange could happen, but the probability of it is so low that they're not even thinking about it, really.
		I mean, what they're hoping is that when they get the experiments seriously going again, that they might see evidence for these strings or these counterpart particles, these supersymmetric particles.
		I mean, that's what they're really interested in, and they're hoping that they'll be able to get the money and continue to have the money.
		It costs about a billion dollars a year to keep running that thing.
unidentified		Oh, yeah.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Well, you know, when scientists have a choice to either push a button or not push a button.
		Right.
		I tell you what, we've got a real quick break to do.
		So hold on, Professor.
		I'm getting so wrapped up in what I'm doing.
		We'll be right back.
unidentified		We'll be right back.
		From the Kingdom of Nigh in the high desert, this is Midnight in the Desert with Art Bell.
		Please ring Arts Bell at 1-952-225-5278.
		That's 1-952-Call Art.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Interrupting my own announcement.
		You know, I'm not saying my music is loud, but I just recently noticed that the water in the bathroom adjacent to me is sending out rings from the center in the sink that are perfectly timed to the bass of the music that I'm running in this room.
		That tells you how I handle my music here.
		Now, the other thing is I just about blew a break, and I get so wrapped up in this topic that, you know, it's another effect of time.
		I mean, so totally wrapped up that everything else goes away.
		I'm listening to the professor and didn't even think about a break coming up.
		Fortunately, a little whisper in my ear corrected that.
		Yet another effect of time.
		What I was saying, professor, was scientists create.
		They think about things.
		They suppose things, which is what a theoretical physicist does, and then other people build things.
		And then once built, even though there is a possibility of perhaps something going wrong, I don't know, the atmosphere igniting, whatever, they do end up pushing the button.
		And while that generally works out well, there may come a day when it may not work out as well.
		You would concede that.
prof ronald mallett ▲ ● ▼		Well, yes, but that's what can happen when you get in your car.
		Oh, sure.
		I mean, the thing that you have to realize is that, you know, anytime we're dealing with the mechanics of nature, something can potentially go wrong.
		I mean, we've seen that with spaceflight and NASA.
		Oh, yes.
		So the question is, is that what is the likelihood?
		And, you know, when you get in your car, you think that it's pretty much going to go, but it's actually much more likely that something's going to go wrong with your car than something's going to go wrong in the Large Hadron Collider.
		That's the real science of it, because the precautions that they take as far as safety precautions are concerned.
		But now you're talking about phenomena that, unexpected phenomena that can occur.
		That's something else, again, because we're being bombarded by cosmic rays.
		And these cosmic rays, some of them have energies that are absolutely incredible.
		And they could be raining down things that we don't even see in particle accelerators yet.
		So they could be causing strange phenomena that we don't even quite understand yet because of that.
		So it's what we, what the these machines allow us to have so much more control of what it is that we're dealing with.
		But what's happening out in nature is something else again.
		And that's one of the things that makes science the exciting thing that it is.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Listen, I'm on your side.
		I'm a button pusher.
		I'm just sort of thinking ahead here that one day as we push limits, we could get an unintended consequence.
		That's all.
prof ronald mallett ▲ ● ▼		Oh, that's very, very possible, but that's always so.
prof ronald mallett ▲ ● ▼		I mean, you have to remember there was a time before radio and television.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		No, not before radio.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		I said, no, not before radio.
prof ronald mallett ▲ ● ▼		Oh, right, right.
		And the thing is, is that it already has unintended consequences.
		I mean, you know, this is part of the way in which when we try to control nature, that this is part of what happens.
		But it doesn't mean that we stop exploring.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		That's right.
		I consider many things on television to be unintended consequences.
		Reality, TV, oh, there's.
unidentified		I have to agree with you about that.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		All right.
		Look, I would like to get to your breakthrough.
		You had a breakthrough.
		What exactly was it?
prof ronald mallett ▲ ● ▼		Well, the thing is, is that in order to talk about the breakthrough, I have to back up and go into what is the foundation of the breakthrough.
		Otherwise, the breakthrough itself won't make a lot of sense.
		And once again, going back to, because you asked me earlier about the possibility of time travel itself, and I was mentioning the special theory of relativity, which says time slows down for a moving clock.
		And I was mentioning the Large Hadron Collider and the fact that what we know is that this effect really does happen because subatomic particles, there are some of them that disintegrate after just a fraction of a second, millionth of a second.
		And you might say that they have an internal clock that says, well, after so much time, boom, they're going to just simply disappear.
		And what happens is that when we accelerate them in something like the Large Hydron Collider, we can make these particles go close to the speed of light.
		And what we've been able to find is that we can make them live 20, 30, 40 times longer than they normally would.
		In effect, what we've done is send these particles into the future.
		And we've actually been able to do this on a human scale, but at a much smaller rate.
		There was an experiment that was done in 1971 at the Naval Observatory, U.S. Naval Observatory, which they took two atomic clocks.
		One was kept at rest at the Naval Observatory.
		The other was put on an ordinary passenger jet and flown around the world.
		When they brought it back, they found that the atomic clock on the passenger jet had actually slowed down and had lost time in exactly the way Einstein predicted in his special theory of relativity.
		This means that this plane actually flew into the future, but by just fractions of a second, because even though it was traveling at the speed of sound, that's very, very slow compared to the speed of light.
		And when we have planes and rockets, or when we have rockets rather, that can go close to the speed of light, and NASA does work on some of these rockets.
		They have exotic names like ion engines.
		Then we will eventually have the effect that when astronauts go out in space, if they're traveling close to the speed of light and come back, only a few years may have passed for those astronauts, but they could have arrived decades into the far future, that travel.
		And in fact, there was a movie, one of the science fiction movies that it's one of my favorites.
		I got it right.
		It was the original planet of the apes with Charlton Heston.
		They thought they had landed on another planet that was ruled by apes.
		What had happened is that what they realized later is that they had been traveling so close to the speed of light that they had actually landed back on the Earth in the distant future.
		But they didn't realize that because things, you know, they thought they were in this weird planet.
		So that effect is travel to the future.
		We actually have already been able to do that.
		As I said, on a human scale, it's going to be a while until we can do it.
		But we can do it.
		It's time travel to the past that I was interested in, and you can't do that from the special theory of relativity.
		So once again, the special theory of relativity says that time for a moving clock slows down, and that allows for time travel into the future, which we already have achieved, just not on a dramatic scale.
		Now, time travel into the past.
		How does that happen?
		Well, Einstein's general theory of relativity does not have to do with speed.
		What Einstein's general theory of relativity says is that time is affected by gravity.
		And that's part of the key of my work, because what Einstein meant by that was that the stronger gravity is, the more time slows down.
		That means a clock here at the surface of the earth, where gravity is stronger, is actually ticking slower than a clock at high altitude.
		And that's important to realize that.
		And we actually know that that effect is real.
		As a matter of fact, our GPS system works because of Einstein's theory of gravity.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		All right, if I'm following what you're saying, would that suggest that with enough gravity, you could slow down dramatically and potentially go into the past?
prof ronald mallett ▲ ● ▼		No, into the future.
		Because you're still just slowing, right?
		You're still slowing time down, okay?
		The effect of slowing time down is what allows you to go into the future.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Okay, well, that then does not get you into the past.
prof ronald mallett ▲ ● ▼		No, but the point is that what it says is that you can actually, and this, I don't have enough time to go into it, but what this is associated with is the fact that in Einstein's theory, gravity, the force that we call gravity, is actually not a force at all.
		It's actually a bending of empty space.
		The sun, for example, bends the empty space around it.
		The analogy I like to use is if you think of space as being like a rubber sheet, like a small trampoline, and if you put a bowling ball on it, you can get the rubber sheet to bend.
		If you take a marble, you can actually put the marble and it will go towards the bowling ball.
		But if you make the rubber sheet transparent, it would appear to you as though somehow the bowling ball is pulling directly on the marble.
		But it's not.
		It's a rubber sheet.
		And that's what Einstein said, that gravity is.
		The sun is actually bending the empty space around it, and the Earth is just moving in that.
		In fact, you can actually do that with the rubber sheet, with the marble.
		If you take a marble and sort of give it a sideways motion, it will actually orbit around the bowling ball, like a skater on a roller derby ring.
		And what the Earth, fortunately for us, when the solar system was formed, the Earth had this sort of a sideways motion, and so it's moving around and around the warped space.
		Now, in Einstein's theory, space and time are connected to each other.
		Whatever you do to space happens to time.
		So this bending of space actually leads to a bending of time.
		You might say, well, what does that mean?
		The bending of time shows up to us as clocks ticking slower.
		So gravity is a bending of space and time.
		But if you can bend space, then you can actually maybe finally twist it.
		In fact, if you have a rotating star, a rotating star will not just simply bend space, it will actually twist space.
		And it turns out that if you have an object like a rotating black hole, not only will it bend space and twist space, but it will also twist time.
		And it's that twisting of time that gives you the possibility of going back into the past.
		Because if you think of time normally as a straight line going from the past, present, to the future, which we all are moving along that line, that invisible dragging of us into the future that we were talking about, that if you could twist time into a loop, then you could go from the past, present, to the future.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Are you referring to something like a pulsar?
prof ronald mallett ▲ ● ▼		A Pulsar is not a rotating black hole.
		Pulsar would cause some twisting of space and time, but not matic enough.
		A rotating black hole is a much, much more dense object, and it would actually cause a twisting of space and time.
		Pulsar is actually a neutron star, which is a state that's a little bit before you get to a black hole state.
		But we do know that they're rotating black holes out there in space.
		We just haven't got, you know, we can't get to them.
		But the thing is, is that if we could, since you have this twisting of time into a loop, and as I said, along this loop, you could go from the past, present, to the future, but you've made time into a loop, so you could go from the future back into the past.
		So Einstein's general theory of relativity allows for the possibility of bending time and twisting time.
		And it's this twisting of time that's part of the core of my work.
		And so once again, what I realized in Einstein's theory, Newton's theory, the only thing that can create gravity is matter.
		And that's it.
		In Einstein's theory, not only can matter create gravity, but light can create gravity as well.
		Even though light does not have mass or matter, light has energy, and the energy of light can actually create gravity.
		And that was the core of my breakthrough, because I realized that, in Einstein's theory, since gravity can affect time, and light can create gravity, then light can affect time.
		That was the core of my breakthrough.
		And what I realized was that I could do something similar to what one has with a rotating black hole by using a device called a ring laser.
		A ring laser is just simply a device that creates a circulating beam of light.
		One way of thinking about it is that if you have a series of mirrors that form like a square, and you bounce light off of one mirror and it hits the other mirror and the other, and it creates a circulating beam of light.
		That circulating beam of light can cause a twisting of space.
		And the analogy that I like to give people to think about that is the fact that think of if you had a cup of coffee in front of you right now.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		I do.
prof ronald mallett ▲ ● ▼		Think of the coffee as being like empty space.
		And think of the spoon as being like the circulating light beam.
		So what happens when you take the spoon and stir the coffee?
		The coffee starts swirling around, sort of creates a vortex in the coffee.
		That, what will happen in empty space is the circulating light beam will actually cause empty space to get swirled around.
		You'll actually be able to create sort of vortex in empty space.
		Now, you might say, well, if it's empty space, how do I see it?
		Well, let's come back to the coffee.
		If I draw a coffee bean in there, then what will happen is that as I'm stirring the coffee, the coffee will drag the coffee bean around.
		So I could see the effect of the spoon stirring the coffee by seeing the coffee dragging the coffee bean around.
		The thing that plays the role of the coffee bean in the experiment that we're talking about would be a particle called the neutron, which is part of every atom.
		If you put a neutron into the empty space and then turn on the circulating light beam, as a circulating light beam is twisting the space, the space will drag the neutron around, just like the coffee dragged the coffee beam around.
		So even though you can't see the space itself being dragged around, what you'll be able to see all of a sudden is the neutron will start getting twisted around when you turn on the circulating light beam.
		So that would tell you that space is actually being twisted.
		And now we go to the next step because remember I said that space and time are connected in Einstein's theory.
		So if you cause this twisting in space to become strong enough, then the straight line of time going from the past, present, to the future will actually get twisted into a loop so that you'll be able to travel from the past, present, to the future.
		But once again, you've twisted time into a loop so you could go from the future back into the past.
		And that's my idea of my work.
		Now, of course, everything that I described to you has been in words.
		I should mention that for physicists, that is not even remotely enough.
		What you have to do whenever you have these things, when physicists say that they have a theoretical model, people sometimes think that that means something that they're talking about verbally.
		It's not that at all.
		What I had to do was to solve Einstein's gravitational field equations for a circulating beam of light.
		And then what I found was I found mathematical results that showed that space and time could be twisted.
		So that is what I actually had to submit as far as a paper was a mathematical model.
		And I have to emphasize that because once again, I have people saying, oh, gee, you know, that's something that you could have thought of.
		Well, after you, once it's out there, then, yeah, it seems clear.
		But you have to actually develop a mathematical model to actually show this in order for it to mean something to physicists.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		I understand.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Have you worked on any practical application that would demonstrate the theory?
prof ronald mallett ▲ ● ▼		Well, the practical application would be showing that you could twist space.
		That's a possibility.
		That could be a new type of space propulsion, for example.
		Imagine if you could use light to manipulate space, then you could manipulate objects in space.
		And that might lead to a whole new type of space travel.
		So that's one of the things that we've been thinking about.
		But the main thing is to actually do the experiments itself.
		And once again, this is where the public gets a lot of their ideas about these things from science fiction movies.
		You know, One of my favorite movies is Back to the Future.
		In real science, and once again, we were talking about the Large Hadron Collider.
		The prediction of that, the Higgs particle, was over forty years ago, and it took ten years to build this Large Hadron Collider at a cost of ten billion dollars.
		And all of that was just to smash particles together to see if they would give you this Higgs particle.
		I mean, that sounds simple, you know, that you smash particles together, they get enough energy that it might create this Higgs particle.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Actually, Professor, I'd heard that even though they claim to have found the Higgs particle, they haven't actually seen it.
		In other words, it had to be identified by its absence in a littered group of particles.
		I mean, that's not a good explanation, but that's what I read.
prof ronald mallett ▲ ● ▼		Oh, no, no, no.
		The thing is, is that many, many experiments, you're not seeing the particle directly.
		What you're seeing is the decay products of.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Where it was.
prof ronald mallett ▲ ● ▼		Right.
		I mean, you're seeing things.
		What's done is the prediction is that this particle will actually disintegrate and give you other things.
		And so you don't have to see the particle directly.
		What you have to see is those other things.
		And that's just the same thing as seeing it.
		So that's just part of the normal process of it.
		But in any case, this thing costs $10 billion.
		And just for the funding that we're looking at for just a feasibility study, and the feasibility study wouldn't be the show time travel.
		What it would be is the first show that you could use circulating light to twist space, which is a whole new effect in itself, which, as I said, could lead to a possibility of a new type of space propulsion.
		But just the feasibility study for that, and by that it means computer modeling, looking at laser arrays.
		And I should mention that I have an experimental partner.
		He's a laser physicist.
		He's not a specialist, but he's a laser physicist.
		His name is Chandrai Chowdhury.
		And he's a research professor at UConn.
		And he became interested in my work and in experimentally verifying my work.
		But just to do the feasibility study is going to cost a quarter of a million dollars.
		And that may sound like a lot, but it's actually minor when it comes to scientific experiments.
		And what we're looking at is trying to get the funding just to do that.
		And what happens is that people are dismayed because they think that, well, this is going to lead immediately to a time machine.
		It's not.
		That's not the way real science happens.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Well, that would not dismay me.
		I would be very excited about that.
		I would love to see that happen.
		And I should add that since we're talking dollars here, yes, a billion dollars is a lot of money.
		But I just read an article indicating the United States plans to spend a trillion dollars on updating our nuclear arms.
		So it's all relative, if you'll excuse me.
prof ronald mallett ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, that's right.
		I mean, so the thing is, is that, but that's the stage that we're in right now, is trying to get the funding for showing that the feasibility study, for showing that circulating light will cause a twisting of space.
		If we see that, then this will allow us to go and do the experiment itself.
		And that experiment will probably cost many millions of dollars more, but we won't know how much more until we do the feasibility study.
		Then, if the experiments show that we can twist space by using light, then the input from that we would use to see what would be necessary to cause the twisting of time.
		And that is going to be caused even more millions of dollars, and that's down the line.
		So we're talking about something that's going to happen over a long period of time, and this is the way in which science progresses.
		And that's okay.
		I mean, the thing is, is that even with a plane, with flight, one of the things that I've always been surprised about is that most of the documentaries that I've seen about the Wright brothers, you know, they do a good job of talking about their background and everything is bicycle mechanics.
		And then they talk about, you know, flying the plane at Kitty Hawk.
		I've only seen one documentary that mentions in detail the fact that these two brothers actually did science and engineering things prior to that.
		What they did was build a small wind tunnel to look at wing configurations.
		That's very practical engineering.
		That's what they did in order to get the correct flight characteristics that were necessary.
		And what I'm doing is sort of like the wind tunnel stage.
		What I'm trying to get the funding for is to showing the twisting of space is like doing that.
		And then from that, that will allow us to see what it is that we need for the twisting of time.
		So the theory is there.
		And as I said, I actually have a partner, experimental partner, that's interested in it.
		And I'm trying to get people who are experts in neutrons to become interested in that part of it.
		Because that, as I said, has applications that are independent of time travel, just simply a new prediction about how circulating light can cause a twisting of space.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Yes, Professor, if you were able to do that, would it be easier to attempt to send information through before anything else?
prof ronald mallett ▲ ● ▼		Oh, yeah.
		I mean, that's the only thing we were interested in.
		I mean, I'm not interested at all in sending people through time.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Why not?
prof ronald mallett ▲ ● ▼		Well, number one, it doesn't serve any purpose, and it's actually, you know, we call ourselves the information age.
		You know, sending a person back is like, you know, that sounds romantic, but sending information back is vastly more important than sending a person back.
		I mean, sending a person back is that's, as I said, that's fun for us.
		But being able to send information back, and we were talking about that earlier, is about warning or sending information back about cures and things like that.
		I mean, this is actually much more important.
		Eventually, it would be nice To send people back, but the amount of energy that would be required for that would require the total capability and collaboration.
		I mean, you know, CERN is an international collaboration.
		It would require something like a super CERN type of thing.
		I mean, it would require the output or the financial cooperation of all the major world governments.
		Once again, that answers the, well, that's because of the fact of the energies that we're talking about.
unidentified		If you're sending information, that's not much energy.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		I was just contemplating the cooperation of all the world governments.
prof ronald mallett ▲ ● ▼		But still, all you have to do is think about the CERN.
		CERN is the cooperation between the United.
		It's Switzerland, Germany, France, and the United States.
		So it is possible if they feel like they want to do it.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Okay, Professor, just for fun, let us imagine that you get the twisting you want, that you can pass information into the past and that you decide to pass, just as an example, information on how to cure a disease that we now know how to cure, thereby saving the lives of millions of people in the past.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Now, that one act could have paradox implications that are staggering to even think about.
prof ronald mallett ▲ ● ▼		Well, that's the reason why I said that time travel to the past is a much more complicated and subtle thing than time travel to the future.
		There are no paradoxes with time travel to the future.
		But when you're talking about time travel to the past, it brings up the specter of what we call the grandfather paradox, which has very, very many forms.
		But the most basic of it is if you go back to prevent your grandparents from meeting each other, then they don't have your parents.
		And if they don't have your parents, then your parents don't have you.
		So how do you go back and change the past?
		But all of these other things you're talking about have that aspect to it.
		And you have to realize that, once again, quantum mechanics has led to a possible resolution of this notion of the paradox.
		What we've been talking about mainly, except when we were talking about entanglement, has been relativity.
unidentified		There's two pillars of modern physics.
prof ronald mallett ▲ ● ▼		One is relativity, the other is quantum mechanics.
		And when you bring quantum mechanics into the mix, you actually have a whole different thing happening.
		And let me clarify that.
		Back in 1957, there was a physicist at Princeton named Hughes Everett III.
		And he was looking at what happens if you apply quantum mechanics to the universe as a whole rather than just to simple systems.
		And when he developed the mathematical theory behind that, he found that it led to a rather startling conclusion.
		And that is to say that whatever outcome can happen, that outcome and its opposite are adjacent would happen.
		For example, if I'm talking about, and I'll use a simple scale, a large scale analogy.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		I'm sorry, Professor, before you get into that, we're right up against a break, so hold that thought.
		We'll come back to it following the break.
		Grab some coffee.
		I know in Connecticut, it's getting really late.
		Professor Ronald Mallett is my guest.
		Time travel is the subject.
		Midnight in the Desert is the show.
		I'm Mark Bell.
unidentified		I'm Mark Bell.
		Coming to you at the speed of light in the darkness.
		This is Midnight in the Desert with Art Bell.
		Now, here's Art.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Here I am.
		And Professor Ronald Mallet is my guest.
		And I'm going to make a leap here.
		Give it a try.
		Let us assume for a moment that what this theoretical physicist that we have in the line says is going to come to pass.
		In other words, you're correct, Professor Mallet.
		And is it irrational to then sit here and think, well, okay, if what the man is saying is correct, and he did agree that sending information back might be the first and most logical practical application of something like that, that we, as you pointed out, live very much in an information age now, professor, so shouldn't we be on the lookout?
		Because, I mean, if time travel becomes possible in reverse, and we're inundated with so much information now, that isn't it possible that on somebody's, oh, I don't know, iPhone, there could suddenly pop what would seem to be an indecipherable message, perhaps indecipherable if it comes from far enough in the future.
		In other words, what I'm saying is, if this is going to be eventually made into a practical application, shouldn't we be looking for messages from the future?
prof ronald mallett ▲ ● ▼		Well, yes, but not quite the way in which you think, and not possibly, you know, we have to be concerned.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		I'm not concerned, I'm just wondering.
prof ronald mallett ▲ ● ▼		Oh, no, but the reason why I'm saying concerned is, and you'll see what I mean by that.
prof ronald mallett ▲ ● ▼		Remember what I was saying about the grandfather paradox?
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Yes, I do.
prof ronald mallett ▲ ● ▼		And what I was mentioning was this physicist, Hugo Everett III, who was applying quantum mechanics to the universe as a whole.
		And what he found was that essentially different decisions, possible outcomes, are all played out.
		And I was giving a specific example that I actually Like to use, which is to say that suppose that today you were trying to make a decision between having a fish sandwich or a cheeseburger.
		At the instant that you decided to, let's say, have the cheeseburger, there would be an Art Bell in a parallel universe that has chosen the fish sandwich.
		They're both real and they're in separate universes, and they both don't know anything about the other.
		And this notion doesn't have to do with just human beings.
		In other words, if an electron has a possibility of going to path A or path B, at the moment that it has that, it can actually go to both.
		It goes into path A in one universe and path B in the other universe.
		So this notion of, it was originally called mini-world theory, and now it's more popularly called parallel universe theory.
		But it's a very important and possible process that quantum mechanics opens up.
		Now, when Everett was looking at this, he was just looking at this as a possibility that was consistent with quantum mechanics.
		It turned out that many years later, it was a physicist in Oxford.
		His name was David Deutsch.
		And David Deutsch decided to apply this to, and mathematically, to see what would happen when it was applied to time travel.
		And what he found was that what it predicted is that suppose you went back into time.
		And the moment that you arrived in the past, it would be a split of the universe into separate universes.
		There would be a universe that you would arrive in.
		And that universe that you arrive in, that parallel universe, you could do something like preventing your grandparents from meeting each other, and they don't have your parents, and so on.
		You would just find yourself in a strange universe that you were never born into.
		However, remember, I said there was a split.
		The other universe, you don't arrive in.
		And that universe leads to the outcome that we know has happened.
		So the upshot of this is the fact that you can travel back to the past, but the past that you travel back to is not the past that you came from.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		So if you change it, it will have no effect on the current one.
prof ronald mallett ▲ ● ▼		Right.
		So that means that if you went back into the past to send information or you went back there with information about the stock market, for example, yes, in that parallel universe, you could become a millionaire.
		But in the original universe that you came from, they wouldn't even know.
		They would just simply say, oh, hey, you know, Art disappeared one day and we've never seen him again.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		So in this way, you avoid the paradox problem.
prof ronald mallett ▲ ● ▼		That's exactly right.
		And that's one of the things that physicists believe is a real possibility is this notion of parallel universe and that quantum mechanics has to be taken into account.
		That's one aspect of it.
		The other aspect that Stephen Hawking has considered is what he calls the chronology protection hypothesis.
		And I emphasize that word hypothesis because it's not a proof.
		It's not a theorem.
		It's just his conjecture.
		And what he feels is that when you try to travel back into the past, nature itself will conspire in ways to prevent you from changing the past.
		In fact, this conjecture of his, he's actually said it makes the world safe for historians.
		And that's actually another possibility.
		But once again, that's just a conjecture.
		So you have that out there.
		So that's why I said it's not as simple as it sounds.
		Now, and then getting back to this notion of information, getting that information, number one, you have to realize that when you're sending information back to the past, you have to send it back in a certain form in which you have a device that will translate that.
		To give you a simple example, people have asked me, well, how would you send information back?
		Well, one of the ways that I have, and this is based on solid physics, is the neutron spins like a little top, like the Earth.
		It spins about an axis, okay?
		But in the world of quantum mechanics, the neutron can only have two directions of spin.
		In our world, you can have any orientation of the spin axis.
		But the neutron can only spin up or it can spin down.
		It only has those two possibilities.
		Now, the thing is, is that suppose that I assign a 1 to the neutron spin up and I assign a 0 to the neutron spin down.
		Suppose I send a stream of neutrons in which I have spin up, spin up, spin down, spin up.
		That's a binary code number.
		And the thing is, is that so by using the spins of neutrons, one can actually send information.
		However, that means you have to have a device associated with your machine that can actually translate these things.
		So the neutrons coming back won't be able to be picked up by an iPhone or anything else unless you have something that decodes the neutron spins and then performs.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Okay, all right.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		So then if that's so, then if the scientist professor at CERN one day, while looking for Higgs or something smaller, find some of these rapidly vanishing particles actually spell out, hey, you better quit this now, they should pay close attention to that message?
prof ronald mallett ▲ ● ▼		Well, they won't because they won't know that that's happening.
		They would actually have to have a neutron receiver.
		It just can't be random subatomic particles.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		I was just trying to have fun.
prof ronald mallett ▲ ● ▼		Oh, I see.
		Okay.
		I can be very literal.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		So can I. So they would not likely receive a message in that manner.
prof ronald mallett ▲ ● ▼		They wouldn't know what they were getting.
		Yeah.
		No.
		You actually have to have a controlled experiment.
		I mean, all you have to do is think about telephone.
		I mean, Alexander Graham Bell had to have a telephone receiver in order to send this telephone message.
		And we have to have a radio receiver in order to get a radio signal.
		You can't just get it with anything.
		You have to know.
		You have to have a device.
		Excuse me.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		No, that's kind of right.
		Let me try a question very quickly.
		Just throw it in.
		Is it possible that parallel universes may be detected by gravity waves?
prof ronald mallett ▲ ● ▼		not necessarily, because the thing is you have to remember that parallel universes, by their nature, means that they split off.
		So you wouldn't know that it was a parallel universe out there.
		And in fact, that creates a problem.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Well, you wouldn't know except for the possibility of some gravity waves that would seem to make it when nothing else would.
prof ronald mallett ▲ ● ▼		Well, I mean, that it might explain things.
		It might explain things that we were wondering about.
		Why would this happen?
		In fact, that's what we think that parallel universes do.
		I think that the theory, when it was originally developed, as I said, it wasn't developed for time travel.
		It was developed to try to see what happens whenever you apply quantum mechanics to the universe.
		And what it implies then is that things that we see right now that are strange could be the result of a parallel universe.
		But the problem is that it's hard to control that as an experiment.
		One of the things that one would, and that's why I said one has to be careful with the messages one does get.
		So let's just suppose for the moment that we now have things set up that we can receive information from the future.
		Here is the paradox and the problem.
		Now, it's not a paradox, but it's a problem.
		We get a message from the future.
		How do we know that that message is from our universe or a parallel universe?
		Because we don't necessarily know because the information that we could be getting, since it's from the future, it could be coming from a parallel universe.
		That means that we may or may not, we might have a new level of uncertainty about whether or not to act on that information.
		Because if we act on it and it's from our universe, that's fine.
		But if we act on it and it's from a parallel universe, that might not be fine.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Why not?
prof ronald mallett ▲ ● ▼		Well, because it could actually be counterproductive.
		It might actually say, it might be from a parallel universe saying, giving us information that, you know, this is going to happen.
		And it's happening in their universe, but it's not happening in our universe.
		And so we're taking precautions or we're making decisions based on information coming from another universe that isn't going to be helpful.
		In fact, could be catastrophic if we act on it in our universe.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Well, it would probably be something like, do something about global warming now.
unidentified		Well, it might be something a little bit more subtle.
prof ronald mallett ▲ ● ▼		It might say that, and more dangerous, that we're going to be attacked by such and such a country.
		And that may be so in their universe, but not in our universe.
		And so we prepare to attack, counterattack that country in this universe because we think that they're going to attack us in this universe, but they're not.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Well, all right, here's a question for you.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Assuming that time travel or time travel for information would become possible, then you would have to imagine it might even be weaponized.
prof ronald mallett ▲ ● ▼		Oh, I mean, in fact, that's one of the things that governments would have to deal with.
		That's why this notion of control of this, every new technology has to have control.
		And when we talk about technology, sometimes people don't even think about how that simple that is.
		For example, let's suppose that you have a butter knife.
		I mean, I have a butter knife and I use it to spread butter.
		But that butter knife can also be used to stab someone.
		The knife itself is technology.
		And it's technology.
		It's neutral.
		It has to do with the intent of the person that has the technology that one has to worry about.
		And that has to be controlled.
		That's why we have laws and everything else.
		And in this particular case, in fact, one of my favorite movies, and it should get much more pressed, and I recommend it to people, it's called Time Cops with Claude Van Dam.
		And the thing is, is that it's a good representation of what will have to happen when time travel comes online because you actually have this international organization.
		It was to protect the time stream, essentially.
		And you had time enforcement officers and all of that sort of thing.
		And that's going to be the sort of thing that has to happen.
		The other aspect is that the technology is going to be so expensive and so it's going to be, let's think of nuclear power.
		None of us have our own individual nuclear reactors and we never will.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		I know, I've always wanted one.
prof ronald mallett ▲ ● ▼		Right.
		And the thing is that when time travel comes online, it's going to be technology of that level.
		So people aren't going to have their own individual time machines that they're going to be able to scoot around in.
		And it's going to be something that has to be controlled on a government level.
		So it's going to be a much, much more dramatic and much more controlled issue when it does happen.
		And it will happen.
		I mean, it's potentially going to happen.
		Whether I'll see it in my lifetime, I'm not sure.
		But I know that it is possible within the framework of Einstein's theories of relativity.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		I've always wanted to actually have what looks like an ICBM in my front yard.
		It would, you know, sort of keep everything in order.
		Every now and then I could have a little smoke venting from Abramson line.
		All right, so it's certainly possible, is it not, that either ourselves in the future or extraterrestrials have long since invented some form of time travel or information transfer?
prof ronald mallett ▲ ● ▼		That's very possible.
		the thing is, is that, and this is actually an important aspect of time travel.
		In the movies, you can go back to any time that you want.
		But with a real-time machine, you actually have a limitation.
		The limitation is that you can only go back to the point where the machine was turned on.
		For example, if I turn the device on today and I leave it on for 10 years, I could travel back seven years, five years, all the way back up to the point the machine was turned on.
		But I can't travel earlier than that because you have to realize that it's the machine that's creating the warping of space and time.
		So that's an inherent limitation.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		With respect to humanity, but when you begin to track it.
		Extraterrestrial time machine.
		Yes.
prof ronald mallett ▲ ● ▼		Right.
		And you're absolutely right, Art.
		I mean, with respect to an extraterrestrial civilization, it's highly likely.
		In fact, one of the things that we know now scientifically is that since the 90s, scientists have found what are called extrasolar planets.
		These are planets that are orbiting other stars.
		Now, as strange as it might seem, we didn't know that until the 90s.
		I mean, it was conjectured, but we saw observationally that there were other solar systems out there.
		Before, we weren't sure that other stars had their own set of solar systems.
		And what this means is that, in fact, scientists like to use catchy phrases, and recently they've actually found a class.
		So what happened is that when they were looking at these extrasolar planets, most of them seemed like they were too close to their sun.
		So they were too hot.
		Some of them seemed like they were too far away.
		So they were too cold.
		What they have found now is a class of planets, extrasolar planets that they call Goldilocks planets.
		So as you might guess from the name, it means that these planets are just right.
		And they're just that the possibility of that light, they could support life.
		Now, we haven't been able to see that yet.
		And the current research that's going on in astrophysics is to determine how one determines the type of atmospheres that are possible on these planets.
		But the general feeling now is among the scientific community is that there are very, and this is just in the neighborhood of our galaxy that we have found, you know, hundreds of these various planets.
		And so, you know, there are billions of galaxies.
		So the notion, it's highly likely that the universe is teeming with life.
		And now that's part of the serious scientific thinking.
		And so that means that if we encounter, I mean, there's probably some of these civilizations that are much more primitive than us, but it's highly likely that there are civilizations out there that are more advanced than us.
		And they could have developed time travel technology, let's say, 10,000 years ago.
		If we encounter them or they encounter us, they could visit our distant past.
		Or once we encounter them, we could use their time travel technology to visit our distant past.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Nora how about this argument?
art bell ▲ ● ▼		They have done it and they have tampered with us.
prof ronald mallett ▲ ● ▼		Well, the thing is, is that that's a conjecture.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Yes, it is.
prof ronald mallett ▲ ● ▼		But it's not beyond the realm of possibility.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		No, it's not.
prof ronald mallett ▲ ● ▼		You know, so yeah, it's a possibility.
prof ronald mallett ▲ ● ▼		The thing is, is that, once again, as a scientist, I have to see, you know, verifiable proof, but it is not beyond the realm of possibility.
unidentified		All right.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Hold tight, Professor.
		When we come back, I'll give you the open lines instructions.
		And if you have a question for the Professor, you're welcome to ask it.
		If you've been listening carefully to all this and you don't have a question, then you have not been listening carefully.
		This is Midnight in the Desert.
		I'm Ardell.
unidentified		Oh, what a night.
		No call screening.
		No waiting on hold.
		No requirement to kiss Art's ring.
		Just good luck.
		Join Art by calling 1-952-225-5278.
		That's 1-952-CALL ART.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Well, all right.
		As we talk about time travel with Professor Ronald Mallet, a very serious man involved in a very serious topic.
		If you would like to join in the conversation or if you formed a question as a result of all this, here's the way you hit to us.
		Our national number, which, you know, these modern days, we used to have 800 numbers.
		Not really necessary.
		Most people have plans that cover U.S.-Canada calling free.
		So our national number is area code 952-2-225-5278.
		952-225-5278.
		Beyond that, if you would like to call us from North America on Skype, that's doable.
		It is doable.
		Just put us in your phone or tablet or whatever, computer, in Skype, as MITD51.
		That's MITD51.
		If you're calling from outside North America, we are M-I-T-D 5-5.
		Once again, M-I-T-D 5-5.
		And once again, here is the professor.
		So, Professor, you've got a book, right, called Time Traveler.
prof ronald mallett ▲ ● ▼		That's right.
		It's Time Traveler, and its subtitle is The Scientist's Personal Mission to Make Time Travel a Reality.
		And the book is both a memoir and a popular science book.
		I mean, it talks about black holes, wormholes, cosmic strings, lasers, quantum mechanics, and relativity, as well as the personal story, my motivation, which I just talked a little bit about.
		But I also, in the book, I go into much more detail about the ups and downs.
		Because after my father died, I mean, we plunged into poverty and it was very, very difficult.
		And I talk about that and how I finally was able to get the money that I needed to go to college, which was not immediate.
		I mean, when I got out of high school, we were just too poor for me to go to college, and I went to the Air Force and I used the GI Bill eventually.
		This was during the Vietnam War period.
		Sometimes I like to give people an example in my book, not just so that they learn something about the physics, but also learn about the possibility of achieving their own dreams.
		I really try to do that when I'm giving speeches as a motivational thing, which is to say that you can achieve your dream if you do three different things.
		Number one, you have to have a dream first, a goal.
		And it should be something that really excites you, something that turns your life.
		It shouldn't be something that other people think is exciting for you, but something that really you want to do, whatever it is.
		And then you have to develop a strategy for achieving that.
		In my case, as I said, it wasn't that I was going to go to college right away, but I developed a strategy of going into the service as an enlisted man and then getting the money from the GI bill.
		And since following my father's footsteps, that allowed me to go to college.
		And then the third thing is what I call the self-sweat equity.
		That is to say, the investment of the effort in yourself to achieve that.
		In other words, the hard work that's necessary to do that.
		And if you do those three things, then there's really nothing that you can't achieve for yourself.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		All right, Professor, here's a question for you.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		If we received a message from the future, whether it would be our future directly or another dimension's future or an extraterrestrial message, in what way would you imagine that that message would manifest?
prof ronald mallett ▲ ● ▼		Well, once again, we would have to know what we're trying to receive.
		You know, to give you a simple example in another domain, the SETI, for example.
		Yes.
		They actually are monitoring and they're using radio telescopes and things.
		In other words, they are assuming that this extraterrestrial intelligence has the same sort of type of way of communicating that we have.
		And that's a reasonable thing because electromagnetic radiation is the same here or on the other side of the galaxy.
		So you have to, so the way which would manifest itself would depend on what we think we would be receiving.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Land is asking for a guess.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		I mean, would it be a note that would flutter to somebody's desk?
prof ronald mallett ▲ ● ▼		No, it would have to be in a way like SETI.
		I mean, you know, you're not going to get extraterrestrial information in that form.
		It's going to have to be in a form that they can receive the communication.
		So we really have to set up a way in which we would think that it's going to be received.
		Here, terrestrially, we will be controlling that.
		In other words, when this device goes online to try to receive information, we will have detectors that detect neutron spin orientations that would allow us to digitalize or to translate that into binary code.
		And we know how to read binary code.
		So we're anticipating that that's the way we're going to be sending the information because we have, in fact, will be doing that.
		In other words, once we have this process, that's how we're going to set it up.
		So we're going to have to, with extraterrestrials, it's going to be a lot harder because the only other way that we could get the information would be, you know, like from SETI.
		And they might send us information in terms of a binary code or something else.
		The problem is that we have to know, we have to be able to determine that we're getting information from them.
		In fact, it's funny because originally pulsars were thought to be information.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		All right, let's try a couple of calls here and see what kind of questions we get.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		You're on the air with Professor Ronald Mallet.
unidentified		Hi.
unidentified		Hello, Art.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Hello.
unidentified		Hi.
unidentified		I got a question that maybe the professor might be or may not be associated with or knowing.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Well, the only way you'll know is to ask.
unidentified		That would be Stephen Gibbs in the HDR from Times Past.
unidentified		You remember him?
prof ronald mallett ▲ ● ▼		No.
unidentified		Oh, okay.
		He had something that was given to him.
		HDR is a hyperdimensional resonator.
		Hart, maybe you can pull him in a little bit more better than I can.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Not really.
unidentified		No?
unidentified		You don't remember Stephen Gibbs?
art bell ▲ ● ▼		I remember Stephen Gibbs vaguely, yes.
		But there's been so much.
		So a hyperdimensional resonator, what's that?
unidentified		It was some kind of invention that he had that had some kind of bar magnet and a set of controllers.
unidentified		And I think it had to do with some high-frequency stuff to make you either out of body or if it was on a correct way of line, go back in time.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		All right, well, that's getting pretty far out there.
		I'm sorry I don't remember it well enough to describe it to the professor.
		There have been a lot of people, professor, that have come up with various sort of time travel schemes or claimed time travel.
		You're aware of that, right?
unidentified		Oh, yeah, no, I'm aware of that.
prof ronald mallett ▲ ● ▼		Once again, as a scientist, it has to be something that's verifiable.
prof ronald mallett ▲ ● ▼		I mean, remember the experiment that I was talking about with the Naval Observatory?
art bell ▲ ● ▼		I do, yes.
prof ronald mallett ▲ ● ▼		Right.
prof ronald mallett ▲ ● ▼		That's been repeated again and again and again, and not just here in the U.S., but in other places.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Right, well, that's science, so yes, we know it's true.
prof ronald mallett ▲ ● ▼		Right.
		The thing is, is that when people tell me that, you know, that a person says that they've traveled back from the future, I tell my students, number one, first, you know, be very polite to the person, number one.
		Two, say, well, okay, show me the machine that you materialized into, because, once again, they cannot have materialized into nothing.
		There has to be a receiver that they were in, because that was the thing that caused the time distortion in the first place.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Well, now, Ed, are we so sure, since it hasn't happened yet, how it would have to manifest?
prof ronald mallett ▲ ● ▼		Oh, yeah.
		I mean, it doesn't matter what the process is.
		For example, when we were talking about the limitation of time draw, let's talk about wormholes.
		You can't go back in time earlier than when the wormhole was formed.
		You just can't.
		I mean, that's physics.
		You can't go back in time earlier than when the rotating black hole was formed.
		So no matter what the process is, and it doesn't matter what it is, you can't go back in time earlier than the process itself.
		So when they materialize, they have to materialize in a device of some sort.
		And it can't just simply be that they materialize out into nothing.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		All right.
		Here's another one.
		You're on the air with Professor Mallet.
		Hello.
unidentified		Hi, Art.
		Hi, Professor Mallet.
		Thanks for taking my call.
		I hope you're all having a great night.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Thank you.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		We are.
unidentified		Great.
		It's been a pleasure listening.
		I have a couple of brief questions.
		Go ahead.
		First, Professor, have you seen the movie Primer about time travel?
prof ronald mallett ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, yeah.
		In fact, I'm glad you bring that movie up because it's one of the few movies that actually talks about the limitation of going back into the past in a rational way.
		It's a very little-known movie and very low-tech, but they do point out that you can't go back in time earlier than the device that caused it.
unidentified		Yeah, I thought the notion of the failed safe was pretty novel and unique.
prof ronald mallett ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, and it's actually based on the way in which physics operates.
prof ronald mallett ▲ ● ▼		So yeah, I'm glad you mentioned that.
unidentified		Great.
		And my other question would be, if you're familiar at all with simulation theory, I know you mentioned this idea that either pulsars or quasars were originally seen as possibly information.
		And I'm curious to know if you're familiar at all with, I guess, this theory that poses that we might be living in a simulation or that there's this alignment of quasars along the different filaments in the galaxy that could suggest different ways of the ordering of physics.
prof ronald mallett ▲ ● ▼		Yeah.
		No, actually, I have heard about this notion that we might be living in a simulation and we might be actually living in a matrix.
		Incidentally, one of my other favorite science fiction movies is The Matrix.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		The Matrix, of course.
prof ronald mallett ▲ ● ▼		Right.
		The thing is, is that, once again, it has to be how does one verify that?
		You know, that's the limitation of what's, yeah, maybe it's a possibility, but how do you actually verify it?
		So it's one of these things that it's an interesting conjecture, but it's hard to know how one actually can, in an operational way, verify it.
unidentified		Sure.
		And my last question is maybe I just wasn't following earlier, but if you're able to talk about the realistic and I guess the large-scale implications of being able to send information back to the past, maybe I wasn't following, but it sounds like you were saying that information sent back might go to a different timeline, so it's essentially just deep charity to different universes.
		Or am I misunderstanding?
prof ronald mallett ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, that's one possibility based on quantum mechanics is the fact that the information that we send back could end up in a parallel universe rather than ending up in our universe.
		And on the converse side of that, that means that the information that we might be getting in our universe might or might not be coming from our universe.
		It might be coming from a parallel universe.
		So we have to have some sort of controls to know what's happening.
unidentified		Would it still be valuable to us?
		Or could some of the information that we get back, say, from a different universe, could it carry different implications?
		Say that basic rules of physics are different in a separate universe and we receive back information that has that as the foundation of its analysis.
		Is that a real possibility?
prof ronald mallett ▲ ● ▼		No, but not on the physics level, but on a technological level.
prof ronald mallett ▲ ● ▼		In other words, we could be, let's suppose that someone sends information back and we were thinking that it was a cure here.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		It could actually be a disease in our so it could be either immensely harmful or helpful.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Who would know?
prof ronald mallett ▲ ● ▼		That would be a real problem.
		But as far as the basic laws of physics, they have to be the same or we won't be able to get the information from them at all.
		In other words, the basic laws of physics have to be the same in both of them.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		All right.
		Thank you very much for the call.
		Al on Skype, you're on the air.
unidentified		Hi there.
		Hi.
		I have two quick questions.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		All right.
unidentified		Okay.
		One is if assuming that if you go back in time, but it ends up being not your timeline, what I don't understand is do we then would that time traveler be creating their own universe?
		Would they actually be creating this universe?
		Or are they just flipping into something that was already there?
		Right.
prof ronald mallett ▲ ● ▼		Right.
		That's right.
		The thing is that you have to remember that, once again, when you take into account the fact that they have to materialize into it, it has to be that they are coming into...
		That's like the device that they left, or they can't just get to that universe.
		So the question is, is that is it a universe that was already there, is what you're saying, and that they come into that universe?
		If we're talking about the parallel universe and the notion and the way in which I was talking about it, you actually would be creating an alternate universe going forward.
unidentified		Wow.
unidentified		That's amazing.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		It is, yeah.
unidentified		My other quick question was, if, let's say we know that now that there could be Earth-like planets, even super-Earths, that could be even millions of years more ahead than us in terms of advanced life.
		And if that's possible, this is really out there, but it's a fun idea.
		If that's possible, and this super-advanced civilization created a time machine, and they turned on that time machine at the time, say, when Earth had dinosaurs roaming on it, would it be possible for those aliens to, say they had this time machine aboard a spaceship that just lasts a long time?
		Could they visit Earth and visit Earth back when it was the time of the dinosaurs?
		Absolutely.
prof ronald mallett ▲ ● ▼		No, no, absolutely.
		That's a possibility.
		But yeah, no, that's a possibility.
		I mean, the question is of them trying to find us.
		I mean, it's a big universe out there.
		But let's say that they're able to find us.
		Yeah, they could actually have visited the time of the dinosaurs if they had created their machine that long ago.
unidentified		Yes.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Well, if they came down with the dinosaurs, they probably left quickly.
unidentified		I would say that that would be very much so.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		On the phone, you're on the air with Professor Mellett.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Hello.
unidentified		Good evening, Art.
		Professor Ron, the given would have to be, let's assume that the physics in, I have two questions, but that the physics here on Earth, as we experience it, is the same anywhere in the universe.
		So put that aside, that's a given.
		Could this technology that you have discovered be used for two ways?
		Could it be used to transport an object?
		And if so, how big back through time into the future?
		As big as a city, as small as a person?
		That's the first part of the question.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Okay, hold on, hold on.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Let's get an answer.
prof ronald mallett ▲ ● ▼		Right.
		No, at least what I'm doing, it would be information.
		You couldn't send, you know, because these things depend on energy.
		You know, you're sending, the larger the thing is, the more energy you're going to need.
		So, no, it would actually be, you know, something as small as a neutron, nothing larger than that in the technology that I'm developing.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Well, you could imagine, though, an extraterrestrial race capable of, let us say, controlling the energy of the sun.
prof ronald mallett ▲ ● ▼		Well, if they're able to control that kind of energy, then they might be able to do it.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		But you have it.
		Okay.
		Caller, next question.
unidentified		Okay, well, this may or may not be related to what we just stated.
		The transporting device that has been leaked out in the last couple of years, I think in Sweden, where they said they did a transporter, Star Trek-type transporter thing, but only, I believe, with a molecule across a room.
		So we know that's possible.
		Would your technology be able, within the current time that we experience, be able to transport physical objects or even living things from point A to point B on Earth?
prof ronald mallett ▲ ● ▼		No.
		Well, number one, what you're talking about is teleportation from time travel.
		And my work is not teleportation.
		In a sense, you might say it's the opposite.
		In teleportation, you're sending things from one point to another in space, okay, over arbitrarily short period of time.
		In my case, you're sending things through time over a short period in space.
		In other words, you want the object to appear in the location now that you have sent it from.
		In other words, your laboratory is somewhere in the future, on the Earth in the future, but you want it to arrive in the past where your laboratory is in the past.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		All right, let's go outside the country to Michelle, and I bet she's in Japan, right?
unidentified		She is.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Hi, Michelle.
unidentified		Hi, this actually deals with what you were just talking about.
		The earlier guest asked about if a civilization, say, millions and millions of years ago, had this time machine.
		And then could we use it to go back to our millions and millions of years ago?
		The question that I had was, let's say this time machine was moved.
		You just said that you'd want it in a static place like a laboratory.
		But let's say someone built it on a ship, and then it started at point A, and then two million years later it was way on the other side of the galaxy somewhere.
		If you walk into it or send information into it or whatever, in the future, where's it going to end up in the past?
		Is it going to end up in that spot in the past or is it going to end up in the machine's original spot in the past?
prof ronald mallett ▲ ● ▼		That's a very excellent question.
		The thing is, is that the way you have to think about it, and I'm going to talk about this in terms of my work that I'm doing, is that when I was talking about these loops in time, the loops really don't close back on each other so that it's like you're going around and around.
		What's happening is that think of two different things happening.
		Imagine that when these loops are being created in time, that it's like a slinky.
		So the base of the slinky is here where the Earth is now.
		As these loops are being created, they're like the helix of the slinky.
		So as the Earth moves, imagine that you take the top part of the slinky.
		You're holding the base of the slinky, you know, where the Earth is now.
		And what you do is the top of this, remember, the laboratory is moving in space, as you pointed out.
		The thing is, is that the top of the slinky is going to adjust itself and be with the laboratory wherever it is in the universe, so that at some later time, the top of the slinky is way over here.
		And what you have to do is, in other words, to get back to the past, you are actually going to have to spiral back along the loops of the slinky.
		And you can go back to any point, and you'll be where the Earth was at that point, all the way back up to when you turned the device on.
unidentified		Right.
		But what if you were to actually physically move the device to another place?
		I guess is the question.
		Would it have to be stationary in one place?
prof ronald mallett ▲ ● ▼		Wherever the device is, it's going to be where the slink.
		I mean, in other words, the loops are going to be adjusted to wherever you move the device.
		It doesn't matter.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		All right.
unidentified		Thanks.
unidentified		So if it started out in, let's say, planet X and later on it ended up on Earth, if you got into it and went all the way back to its beginning, you would end up on planet X, in theory, correct?
prof ronald mallett ▲ ● ▼		Wherever you move, you have to remember that what you're doing is you have to leave the device on continuously.
		That's important.
		So these loops will adjust to wherever you are.
		And you're going back in time to wherever that particular link on the slinky was to where you were.
unidentified		So if the machine was able to be able to move while turning on, you would end up wherever the machine was at the point that you jump off, basically.
prof ronald mallett ▲ ● ▼		You got it.
unidentified		Right.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		In the future, Michelle, if you wouldn't mind, Planet Y. Anything Planet X is in just X, Y, Z, N. The latest date for extinction, by the way, is October 7th.
		Thank you, Michelle.
		Thank you.
		All right.
		Let's go to Jeff.
		Hello, Jeff.
		You're on with Professor Mallet.
unidentified		Hey, there.
		It's good to hear from you.
		I just wanted to give you a quick shout-out.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, you're kind of breaking up a little there.
unidentified		Oh, dang it.
		I always tend to break out.
		I just want to tell you, my dad passed away, and Steve and I used to always talk about all the good things that you've always done.
		He passed away this week.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Okay, I'm sorry, Jeff.
		It's just not going to make it.
		That was totally broken.
		Try for better internet and give us a shot.
		Let's go to the phone, I guess.
		And hello.
		You're on the air with Professor Mallet.
unidentified		Hello, Art and Professor Mallet.
		Hello, Josh in Utah.
		I have a few questions.
		My first question is, if time travel ever becomes possible, is it possible to completely miss the Earth when going back and forth?
		Because the universe is expanding and you're always missing.
		I don't know if you heard the fact that it ties into the previous call.
prof ronald mallett ▲ ● ▼		Right.
		But that's the answer.
		These loops would adjust to wherever you are as long as you leave the device on continuously.
		So you're not going to end up in space.
		You're going to end up where the device was.
		Because the loops, as I said, it's like, as I said, this thing with the analogy of the slinky really is an accurate analogy.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		So without going over it again, the answer is no problem.
unidentified		Right, right.
		Okay, and the second question, a lot of these books that we read, like the future worlds and these dystopias, it really seems like the authors are really experiencing this.
		Is it possible that some of these people writing these books are the people that are having those slips between alternate realities?
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Can't say absolutely no.
prof ronald mallett ▲ ● ▼		Well, no, but the thing is, is that what you have to remember is that the human imagination is incredible.
		I mean, H.G. Wells, when he was writing this book, The Time Machine, he wrote it 10 years before relativity came on.
		And what he said in it almost sounds like, how did he get this information?
		He actually calls time the fourth dimension.
		That was the first time it was stated like that.
		And it was something that's always caused me to ponder how did he come up with this information.
		So the thing is that I think that it just has to do with the human imagination rather than the fact that they're getting some sort of outside information.
		One of my favorite quotes by Einstein is that imagination is more important than knowledge.
		Knowledge is limited, but imagination encircles the world.
		And what he meant by that was not that knowledge isn't important, but what he meant is that the driving force for us to acquire knowledge is our imagination.
		So I just think that these people are extremely imaginative, and they could lead to the real possibilities.
		After all, H.G. Wells was the inspiration for me to try to understand scientifically how time travel was possible.
unidentified		All right.
		And the final question is, there's a popular British sci-fi show that you may have heard of.
		And in that show, the main character talks about.
		I'm a huge fan.
		The doctor talks about these fixed points in time where you can go through time, but there are certain things that you cannot change or influence.
		And I'm wondering, is that probably going to be true when we get time travel?
prof ronald mallett ▲ ● ▼		See, that's one of those things that we don't know until we do it.
		Because, as I mentioned, this notion of parallel universes is actually just one possible conjecture.
		I mentioned that Stephen Hawking had another.
		And there's also the possibility, which I didn't mention, of the fact that what we think of as being part of our life, if time travel had been invented earlier, is something that we don't even realize is different.
		What you were talking about as far as fixed things, that would play into Hawking's chronology protection hypothesis, that there would be things that you can't alter.
		But once again, we don't know.
		And then there's that scary other possibility, which is the fact that when we do go back in time, we really do alter our real universe and change it, and that the only person who realizes that is the person who altered it.
unidentified		Yes.
unidentified		Everyone else outside of the time stream doesn't realize that.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		All right, you two.
		I'm sorry, we've got to call a halt to it there.
		We'll take a break and then more questions for Professor Mallett.
		I'm Art Bell, and this is Night in the Desert, Stumbling Through the Night.
unidentified		I'm Art Bell, and this is Night in the Desert, Stumbling Through the Night.
		Now and then, by the catching number in, I stopped to know that along the way, hoping to find some old forgotten words or ancient man.
		Coming to you at the speed of light in the darkness, this is Midnight in the Desert with Art Bell.
		Now, here's Art.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Here I am.
		And for that poor fellow who called earlier and said, gee, I'm broken up every time I call.
		It's your internet.
		So what you need to do is upgrade your internet.
		And it's not so much a matter of speed.
		It's actually something called jitter in the internet.
		You could have a pretty good speed, but if you had enough jitter, the audio would always be broken up like that.
		So you're going to want to look into that and have a discussion with your provider.
		And with that in mind, Professor, once again, here we are, and lots of people want to talk to you.
		So let's go to Marion all the way over in Romania in the European Union.
		Hi, Marion.
unidentified		I apologize for my voice again.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		That's all right.
unidentified		Go ahead.
		Well, one that goes back in time, for example, can send information from today one day ago to one day ago to get the lottery winnings or, I don't know, what financial gains, I mean, for today.
		So what's going to stop them from doing that?
		Or why it has been done by now?
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Okay.
		Well, if you were listening, Professor, I think you feel that the information would not come from this specific timeline.
		Is that right?
unidentified		That's right.
prof ronald mallett ▲ ● ▼		I mean, according to quantum mechanics, I mean, the person might make a winning in another universe, but they won't make it in this universe.
		That's one possible scenario.
		And so the other thing is that it can't have happened yet because time travel hasn't been invented yet.
		Not terrestrial time travel.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Any minute, though.
prof ronald mallett ▲ ● ▼		With the right amount of money and a great enough technology, a lot of money, perhaps.
		But the thing is, is that, as I said, according to what we understand from quantum mechanics, you might be able to alter information in another parallel world, but maybe not this.
		That's just one possibility.
		As I said, there's the other option of Stephen Hawking's chronology protection hypothesis, which simply says that when you try to send the information back, you won't be able to do it.
		But once again, we don't know what's going to really happen when that happens.
		And once again, the technology, when it does go online, is not going to be accessible to individuals any more than nuclear reactors are accessible to individuals.
unidentified		All right.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		On to Dale.
		Hello, Dale, on Skype.
		You're on.
unidentified		Hey, Art Bell.
unidentified		How are you doing?
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Very well.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Thank you.
unidentified		Great, great.
		Great show today.
		Great show today.
		Thank you.
		Professor, I've got a couple of geometry questions for you.
		This is a really interesting theory.
		Are you, with the light that you're using to create the changes in the fabric, are you moving the light like in a cylinder like you were just so that the light beam stays parallel and it moves around?
		Or is it moving in a cone like you use the analogy of stirring ice?
		Or are you actually using like a coherent source and rotating it along the axis of the light beam?
prof ronald mallett ▲ ● ▼		Okay.
		Well, to answer all of your questions in one.
		Number one, it is a coherent light source.
		It's lasers.
		In other words, when I say light, it has to be specifically laser light.
		The other is that it's actually you can create a cylinder of light that actually is light going along the surface of a cylinder.
		So that's what you're doing.
		So it's coherent laser light and it's in a cylinder pattern.
unidentified		Okay, so you're spinning it.
		Okay, but you're not interested.
		So many tie-ins with a lot of the other machines we've been hearing about lately.
		The other question was, you know, with E equals MC square, you get a whole lot of energy out of matter.
		And I'm wondering if this machine, if this idea, is deforming the fabric of space-time in the same way that matter does.
		It would take a lot of light to do that.
		So how much light do you need?
prof ronald mallett ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, no, that's absolutely right.
		As far as twisting space is concerned, it's not that much.
		But when it comes to twisting time, it could be gigantic.
		That's why we have to try to understand first how much we need.
		And we do actually know how much we need to twist space.
		But what we're hoping to learn from that is novel ways of overcoming how much we would need to twist time.
		It's very much the analogy that I was mentioning earlier with equals MC square.
		That sounds like a simple equation, but the question is, is, how do you get that energy out of that mass?
		And it wasn't even clear at all until the 30s that it was even possible, even though theoretically it was so.
		It wasn't until we discovered the notion of chain reaction that we actually were able to see how we could get the energy out of the nucleus, okay, to create that enormous amount of energy that we have, which results in the atomic bomb, but also a nuclear reactor.
		So what we're hoping is that with these feasibility studies and when we do the experiments with the twisting of space, that this will allow us to understand how we can overcome the energy barrier to cause the twisting of time.
		But once again, we haven't gotten to that stage yet.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		All right.
		Very quickly, I think Tube Vancouver, Washington on the phone.
		Hello.
unidentified		Hello, Art, and Professor Mellett.
prof ronald mallett ▲ ● ▼		Yes.
unidentified		I am by no means a scientist, but I have a personal theory about time dilation that I'd like to run by you and see what you might think about it.
		I picture a simple atom, like a hydrogen atom, with the electron orbiting around the nucleus, describing a perfect circle.
		Now, let's say you accelerate that in a linear direction.
		It's no longer describing that circle.
		It's describing a spiral now.
		It's trading off some of its orbital velocity for the linear velocity.
		And the faster you accelerate it, the more elongated that spiral becomes until finally it becomes more or less a straight line.
		And perhaps that could explain why time slows down for, you know, theoretically, for something that is traveling, you know, at speeds close to light.
		I just wonder what you might think about that.
prof ronald mallett ▲ ● ▼		Well, the thing is, is that you're partially right, but you have to remember that the system has time in it.
		It's not something that's creating time.
		It has time in it.
		So you're actually having a time dilation effect that's happening for the electron that's moving around the proton.
		And then when you're moving the system, it's the time dilation effect that's happening, is happening to the system.
		It's not that the system is creating the time dilation.
		So that's, as I said, you have to remember that the time is independent of the system.
		And what you're doing by accelerating it is you're actually causing the time of the system to become altered, not the time of the system, that the system is creating the time dilation.
		Does that make sense?
art bell ▲ ● ▼		I think it does to me.
		Let's go to Skype.
		Hello, you're on the air with Professor Mellick.
unidentified		Is this me?
art bell ▲ ● ▼		That is you.
unidentified		Awesome.
		I had a quick question for the professor.
		Take my answer off the air.
		Once time trouble becomes impossible, would it be possible to go back in time and record an event with a VAM recorder or an audio recorder?
		And if so, with the information on that recorder, it still exists when you came back to the future.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Ooh, good one.
prof ronald mallett ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, so what you're saying is that suppose you go back.
		The problem is that it may or may not, because once you've gone back, you've altered the past.
		So if you come back, then you might find that you have a different system because you disturbed the past.
		And so what you now have on your camcorder is not what you would have if you went back again.
unidentified		No.
prof ronald mallett ▲ ● ▼		Because you've altered the past by being there.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Boy, that's disappointing.
		All right.
		Let's go here.
		I'm not sure where here is, but on the phone, you're on the air with Professor Mallet.
unidentified		Excellent, excellent.
		I'm calling from San Diego, California.
		I did not catch the beginning of the program, but I've heard Dr. Mallet in the past, so I'm sort of familiar with his theories.
		And the basic premise, I think, Professor, is that the energy density of the circulating ring laser is such that you are warping space-time, correct?
prof ronald mallett ▲ ● ▼		That's correct.
unidentified		I'd like to pose some physics challenges to that.
unidentified		Now, the first question is, have you measured the warping of space-time with your current setup?
prof ronald mallett ▲ ● ▼		No, because we haven't been able to do the experiment yes.
		But if you mean as far as the equation is concerned, yes, definitely.
		We know what sort of energy densities are going to cause the twisting of space.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		All right, practical application, not yet.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Go ahead.
unidentified		Theoretically, right.
		So I pose that you are going to struggle immensely with this simply because of the energy density requirement.
		So as you know, we cannot do high-energy density particle physics with a laser yet.
		We can do nuclear physics with a laser, but not particle physics.
		The highest energy density that we have on the planet would be found in a particle accelerator, something like CERN, you know, a Hadron Collider.
		Even there, the energy densities are not sufficient enough to warp space-time.
prof ronald mallett ▲ ● ▼		I mean, that may be true, but what we're talking about is actually you can distort space with the equation actually has, if you look at the equation, it has independent factors.
prof ronald mallett ▲ ● ▼		It's not just simply the energy density, but it's actually this is a ring laser type of thing.
unidentified		Well, right.
prof ronald mallett ▲ ● ▼		And it's inversely proportional to the size of the ring laser.
unidentified		What it boils down to, sir, is just energy density.
unidentified		So for instance, if you think of any energy.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Hold on, Caller.
unidentified		Hold on.
prof ronald mallett ▲ ● ▼		The equation actually has two separate factors.
		You're saying that it only has one, and that's not true.
		The equation has the energy density divided by the size of the ring laser.
		So you have two independent parameters.
		If you have, what you have to do is maximize the energy density and minimize the size of the ring laser.
unidentified		But that's just energy density.
		That's energy per volume.
		So that's just Energy per volume.
		If you think of Eddington's measurement of Einstein's theory, where the starlight was passing near the sun, and Einstein believed theory, that you would send that light.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Hold on, hold on, hold on.
prof ronald mallett ▲ ● ▼		You're wrong.
unidentified		There's energy density per second.
unidentified		All right, go ahead, Professor.
prof ronald mallett ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, the equation says two separate things.
		It's not just simply the energy density of the ring laser.
		The energy density is a separate factor from the size of the ring laser.
		The size of the ring laser is a separate parameter.
		And that, what you're doing is you're actually increasing the energy and decreasing the ring laser size.
		That is not the same thing as changing the energy density.
		So what you're measuring in both cases, the thing that you're measuring is the precession of the neutron and the precession of the neutron for reasonable energies, for instance, 1,000 joules, you can actually show that you get a precession rate that is probably measurable.
		So that's not quite true.
		What we're trying to do is to show that you can cause a precession of the neutron due to the circulating ring laser.
		And that is actually something that is within present technology.
		Now, as far as twisting time, that requires not only different equations, but that requires much more energy.
		But as far as twisting space is concerned, that is definitely within the present technology and within laser powers.
		As a matter of fact, I have a colleague who's a laser specialist and is an expert in diode lasers.
		And the NSF proposal we have actually shows that you can cause this twisting.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		And he's going to need how much money to begin to approve application?
prof ronald mallett ▲ ● ▼		Like I said, we have to have at least a quarter of a million dollars for the feasibility study.
prof ronald mallett ▲ ● ▼		And then that will determine exactly how much we need for the actual experiments.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Well, that seems within reason.
		Hi there.
		You're on the air with Professor Mallet.
unidentified		Hi, guys.
unidentified		Good evening.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Good evening.
unidentified		Hi, this is Chandler Colling from Bloomington, Normal, Illinois.
unidentified		And my question to the guest is about a month or two ago, Art, you had that you'd interviewed a guy who had claimed to have traveled back in time as part of Project Pegasus by DARPA.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		That's right.
unidentified		And even viewed dinosaurs and said he attended the Gettysburg Address.
unidentified		And I was wondering...
prof ronald mallett ▲ ● ▼		Are you?
prof ronald mallett ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, I am.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, he is.
unidentified		So I would wonder, have you, in that case, or have you ever run across any other specific cases that have given you pause and made you wonder whether we've had visitors from the future?
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Well, I don't think Andrew gave him pause, but he can answer for himself.
prof ronald mallett ▲ ● ▼		He just gave him pause.
		Now, remember what I said about verifiability.
		And this is important.
		You know, physics and science in general has two critical things, reproducibility and verifiability.
		You have to be able to verify this.
		And when I say verify it, I mean by independent laboratories anywhere in the world.
		And you have to be able to reproduce it anytime, you know, again and again and again under the same conditions.
		One of the things that I'm very, very proud of is my book has been translated in a number of different languages.
		Those languages are ones that I can't read.
		For example, it's been translated to Japanese, Chinese, and Korean.
		The thing that looks exactly the same in all of those languages is the basic equation that I have for the precession of the neutron due to the gravitational field of circulating light.
		The equation looks exactly the same.
		What that says is the universe reality.
		Someone in any of these countries can verify my work independently of me.
		And the thing is, is that whenever, for scientists, if you can't show in a verified way that what you have done can be done and reproduced, then it's, let's just simply say the community is skeptical.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		So Andrew's got to go back again.
unidentified		Well, thanks for your answer.
unidentified		It's slightly disappointing, if that's very direct.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		All right.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Thank you very much.
unidentified		Thank you guys.
unidentified		Right.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Thank you.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Professor, we are out of time, literally.
prof ronald mallett ▲ ● ▼		One thing is I'd just like to mention if people are interested in the book, it is available on Amazon.com.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Of course.
unidentified		And the name of the book is Time Traveler.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Time Traveler.
		All right.
		Well, it has been my pleasure, as always, to interview you on one of my favorite topics.
		So, Professor, thanks a million.
prof ronald mallett ▲ ● ▼		Thank you very much, Eric, for having me on your program.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		I wish it could be thanks, you know, a quarter of a million, and you could move.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Anyway, have a great night, Professor, and thank you.
prof ronald mallett ▲ ● ▼		Thank you very much.
unidentified		Good night.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		From all the time zones involved, which is all of them, we're here on the high desert, and we're saying goodnight.
unidentified		We're filled with the longing, searching for the truth.
		Will we make it to tomorrow?
		Will the sun shine on you?
		Good night in the desert, and we're listening.

▲