EMBARGOED FOR RELEASE: 16 MAY 2001 AT 14:00 ET USContact: Claire Bowles
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
44-207-331-2751
New Scientist

Time Twister

Before your children are born, their children could turn up at your door.
Michael Brooks discovers how to turn the future into the past


RONALD MALLETT thinks he has found a practical way to make a time machine.
Mallett isn't mad. None of the known laws of physics forbids time travel, and
in theory, shunting matter back and forth through time shouldn't be that
difficult.


The catch usually comes when you try to make it work in practice. Remember
wormholes, those clever little tunnels in space and time that can supposedly
be used to travel from one moment to another? On paper, they're a perfectly
respectable way to travel back in time. Trouble is, you need a supply of
exotic "negative energy" matter to prise your wormhole open.

But Mallett, a professor of theoretical physics at Connecticut University,
believes he has found a route to the past that uses something much more down
to earth: light. Mallett has worked out that a circulating beam of light,
slowed to a snail's pace, just might be the vital ingredient for time travel.
Not only is the technology within our grasp, Mallett has teamed up with other
scientists at Connecticut to work towards building it. "With this device," he
says, "time travel may become a practical possibility."

It may be hard for us to climb into Mallett's time machine, as slowing light
down requires temperatures close to absolute zero. But future, advanced
civilisations might work out a way to do it. And they might even come back to
tell us how. If it works in the way Mallett believes it might, his device
would provide time travellers from the future with their first gateway into
our history. Mallett began his journey into the past when he was just ten
years old. In 1955, his father died of a heart attack. "For me, the sun rose
and set on him. It completely devastated me," Mallett says. But then he came
across The Time Machine by H. G. Wells. Even as a child, Mallett knew his
father hadn't taken care of himself. Drinking and heavy smoking took a toll
on his weak heart, and it gave out at the age of 33. "My notion was that if I
could build a time machine, I might be able to warn him about what was going
to happen," Mallett says. "That became my guiding light."

What started as a childish notion grew into a passionate investigation of
everything ever written about time travel. When Mallett studied the work of
Einstein-who died in the same year as his father-he realised that Wells's
novel was right on track: time travel is, in theory at least, achievable.

Einstein himself found the notion upsetting, but he had only himself to
blame. He showed that the effect we call gravity is a bending of space and
time. Anything that has mass or energy distorts the space and the passage of
time in its vicinity, a bit like the way the surface of a soft couch is
distorted when someone sits on it. Solving Einstein's gravitational field
equations tells you just how space-time is distorted by mass and energy.

A lump of matter stretches space and time. So, for example, clocks run slower
in the gravitational field close to Earth than they do far out in space. And
if you set a massive lump spinning, it begins to whip space and time around
after it, like a rotating teaspoon dragging the foam on a cup of coffee. The
denser and faster-moving the matter, the more strongly it distorts
space-time. Take this idea far enough, and you find that time can be twisted
so much that instead of running in an infinite line from past to future, it
is bent into a ring. Follow this loop around, and you return to a particular
moment, just as a walk around the block brings you back to your front door.
Theoreticians have found some solutions to Einstein's equations that include
these "closed time-like loops"-physicists' jargon for a time machine. The
first to do so was the Austrian-born mathematician Kurt GÅ¡del, in 1949, but
unfortunately his solution required the whole Universe to be rotating-which
it's not. Decades later Kip Thorne of Caltech came up with the idea of using
wormholes, which link different regions of warped space-time, to provide such
loops. Other loops can be made by infinitely long, spinning
cylinders-somewhat hard to come by-or fast-moving cosmic strings. In the
early Universe, these ultra-dense strands of matter may have been as common
as dirt, but alas, no longer. Mallett's idea of using light is much less
outlandish. "People forget that light, even though it has no mass, causes
space to bend," he says. Light that has been reflected or refracted to follow
a circular path has particularly strange effects. Last year, Mallett
published a paper describing how a circulating beam of laser light would
create a vortex in space within its circle (Physics Letters A, vol 269, p
214). Then he had a eureka moment. "I realised that time, as well as space,
might be twisted by circulating light beams," Mallett says.

To twist time into a loop, Mallett worked out that he would have to add a
second light beam, circulating in the opposite direction. Then if you
increase the intensity of the light enough, space and time swap roles: inside
the circulating light beam, time runs round and round, while what to an
outsider looks like time becomes like an ordinary dimension of space. A
person walking along in the right direction could actually be walking
backwards in time-as measured outside the circle. So after walking for a
while, you could leave the circle and meet yourself before you have entered
it (see Diagram, opposite).

The energy needed to twist time into a loop is enormous, however. Perhaps
this wouldn't be a practical time machine after all? But when Mallett took
another look at his solutions, he saw that the effect of circulating light
depends on its velocity: the slower the light, the stronger the distortion in
space-time. Though it seems counter-intuitive, light gains inertia as it is
slowed down. "Increasing its inertia increases its energy, and this increases
the effect," Mallett says. As luck would have it, slowing light down has just
become a practical possibility. Lene Hau of Harvard University has slowed
light from the usual 300,000 kilometres per second to just a few metres per
second-and even to a standstill (New Scientist, 27 January, p 4). "Prior to
this, I wouldn't have thought time travel this way was a practical
possibility," Mallett says. "But the slow light opens up a domain we just
haven't had before."

To slow light down, Hau uses an ultra-cold bath of atoms known as a
Bose-Einstein condensate. "All you need is to have the light circulate in one
of these media," Mallett says. "It's a technological problem. I'm not saying
it's easy, but we're not talking about exotic technology here; we're not
talking about creating wormholes in space."

Mallett has already caught the interest of his head of department, William
Stwalley, who leads a group of cold-atom researchers. Their first experiment
will be designed only to observe the twisting of space, by looking for its
effect on the spin of a particle trapped in the light circle. If they can
then add a second beam, Mallett believes evidence of time travel will
eventually appear. He's not sure how time travel would manifest itself.
Perhaps what starts out as a single trapped particle would acquire a
partner-the particle visiting itself from the future.


Stwalley is more interested in the practical challenges of the experiment,
and remains sceptical about possibilities of time travel. "A time machine
certainly seems like a distant improbability at best," he says.

Last month, Mallett gave his first talk on the idea at the University of
Michigan at the invitation of astrophysicist Fred Adams, who accepts that the
theoretical side of Mallett's work stands up to scrutiny. "The reception was
cautious and sceptical," Adams admits. "But there were no holes punched in
it, either. The solution is probably valid."

But even Adams isn't convinced that the experiment will work. That's hardly
surprising, as time travel raises disturbing questions. Could you go back and
murder your grandparents, making your birth impossible? There may be ways out
of this problem (see "Paradox lost"), but most physicists think that any
attempt to mess with history should be impossible. The Cambridge
astrophysicist Stephen Hawking calls this the "chronology protection
conjecture".

The general theory of relativity, which Mallett used to work out his theory
of time travel, does not take account of quantum mechanics. Could this be the
crucial omission that means time machines won't work in the real Universe?
Hawking and Thorne say that any time machine would magnify quantum
fluctuations in the electromagnetic field, and destroy itself with a beam of
intense radiation. But to know for sure, we need a theory of quantum
gravity-a theory that merges quantum theory with relativity.

Even Mallett doesn't claim that time travel is definitely within reach.
"Whether it will do what I predict is something that one will only know by
performing the actual experiment," he says. Then there's the problem of
getting on and off the loop of time without destroying it-or yourself. "I
really don't know whether you could use this in the sense of H. G. Wells's
time machine," says Mallett.

But who knows? In a few years, we may have entered an era when time travel is
possible, and all kinds of strange people, things and situations from the
future might come to visit. One thing seems certain, though. Even if the
Connecticut time machine works, it won't be taking any Yankees back to the
court of King Arthur. Mallett's circle of light won't allow anyone to travel
back beyond the point where time first formed a closed loop. So it will be
impossible to go back to a time before it was set up. "A later person could
only travel back to the time when the machine is turned on," Mallett says.
This may explain why we have never been overrun by visitors from the future.
It also means that although Mallett might change the Universe, he won't ever
achieve his childhood dream. Mallet's father will remain forever beyond his
reach.

###


Michael Brooks is a Features Editor at New Scientist

New Scientist issue: 19 May 2001


PLEASE MENTION NEW SCIENTIST AS THE SOURCE OF THIS STORY AND, IF PUBLISHING
ONLINE, PLEASE CARRY A HYPERLINK TO: http://www.newscientist.com

Reply via email to