Search FQXi

If you are aware of an interesting new academic paper (that has been published in a peer-reviewed journal or has appeared on the arXiv), a conference talk (at an official professional scientific meeting), an external blog post (by a professional scientist) or a news item (in the mainstream news media), which you think might make an interesting topic for an FQXi blog post, then please contact us at forums@fqxi.org with a link to the original source and a sentence about why you think that the work is worthy of discussion. Please note that we receive many such suggestions and while we endeavour to respond to them, we may not be able to reply to all suggestions.

Please also note that we do not accept unsolicited posts and we cannot review, or open new threads for, unsolicited articles or papers. Requests to review or post such materials will not be answered. If you have your own novel physics theory or model, which you would like to post for further discussion among then FQXi community, then please add them directly to the "Alternative Models of Reality" thread, or to the "Alternative Models of Cosmology" thread. Thank you.

Forum Home
Introduction

Order posts by:
chronological order
most recent first

Posts by the blogger are highlighted in orange; posts by FQXi Members are highlighted in blue.

RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

songjoong df: on 12/27/17 at 7:02am UTC, wrote cara menjadi reseller qnc jelly gamat Cara Menjadi Agen Qnc Jelly Gamat ...

Jason Wolfe: on 4/14/12 at 19:36pm UTC, wrote Hello All, I am scrutinizing this warp drive article. ...

Georgina Parry: on 4/13/12 at 23:17pm UTC, wrote Hi Orsi, could you tell us more? What do you mean by Universe? As you...

orsi selymes: on 4/13/12 at 14:12pm UTC, wrote hi everyone. i am a soc psych pdh student, would like to confirm whether my...

Steve Dufourny: on 4/13/12 at 11:13am UTC, wrote Zeeya, always a false thread, say them to be more skilling about the...

Zeeya: on 4/12/12 at 15:45pm UTC, wrote Hi Joy, Thanks for the link. I'm glad that there respects were paid at the...

Steve Dufourny: on 4/12/12 at 9:52am UTC, wrote Hi Zeeya, Thank you very much. He merits it. He was a real catalyzer of...

Joy Christian: on 4/11/12 at 18:15pm UTC, wrote We had a brief mamorioum for Ray here:fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/989, ...

RECENT FORUM POSTS

Georgina Woodward: "What is happening in material reality provides the connection to inertia...." in Bonus Koan: Distant...

Georgina Woodward: ""We saw early on that as conformed by countless experiment, there is no..." in Bonus Koan: Distant...

Ian Durham: ""Loony" Max Tegmark is the director of the organization that runs this..." in Measuring Free Will: Ian...

Lorraine Ford: "Ian, I’m sorry for going overboard on the “physicists think that”..." in Measuring Free Will: Ian...

andrea gonzalez: "Interesting stuff to read. Keep it up. If want to collect free gift card..." in Memory, Causality and...

Joe Fisher: "Dear Dr. Kuhn, Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this..." in First Things First: The...

Poker Online: "https://www.jakartapoker.net/" in Downward causation:...

Enquire us: "Your Ro system desires regular maintenance to confirm it’s continually in..." in Agency in the Physical...

RECENT ARTICLES

First Things First: The Physics of Causality
Why do we remember the past and not the future? Untangling the connections between cause and effect, choice, and entropy.

Can Time Be Saved From Physics?
Philosophers, physicists and neuroscientists discuss how our sense of time’s flow might arise through our interactions with external stimuli—despite suggestions from Einstein's relativity that our perception of the passage of time is an illusion.

Thermo-Demonics
A devilish new framework of thermodynamics that focuses on how we observe information could help illuminate our understanding of probability and rewrite quantum theory.

Gravity's Residue
An unusual approach to unifying the laws of physics could solve Hawking's black-hole information paradox—and its predicted gravitational "memory effect" could be picked up by LIGO.

Could Mind Forge the Universe?
Objective reality, and the laws of physics themselves, emerge from our observations, according to a new framework that turns what we think of as fundamental on its head.

FQXi BLOGS
August 25, 2019

CATEGORY: Blog [back]
TOPIC: 2180: The Year of the Warp Drive? [refresh]

FQXi Administrator Zeeya Merali wrote on May. 12, 2009 @ 18:40 GMT
The first thing I should say is that I have not yet seen the new Star Trek movie, though I do intend to. (Is it any good?) But I have seen a raft of articles about the science of Star Trek (what should the collective noun for Star Trek stories be? An “enterprise” of Star Trek stories?) over the past week.

All this reminded me that I have the distinction of actually having attended a conference a couple of years ago dedicated to building a warp drive, organised by the British Interplanetary Society, in London. The society’s motto is “From imagination to reality...” and that was very much the spirit of the meeting as engineers and physicists met to seriously discuss if, when, and how warp drives could be manufactured, allowing faster-than-light travel. (One participant did wear a Klingon tie, but he did so with irony.)

Jeremy Gardiner kicked off by boldly predicting something that no man had predicted before: that we will be whizzing around in FTL spacecrafts by 2180. His estimates weren’t based on evaluations of the physics or on engineering considerations, but—interestingly—he looked at the timescale for other seemingly wild ideas to shift from science fiction to science fact. In particular, he compared the case with the historical development of the technology needed to travel to the moon, identifying six steps society needs to pass through from “conjecture” (1657 in the moon case, when Cyrano de Bergerac wrote about journeying to the moon), passing through the phases of “speculation,” “science,” “technology,” “application,” to final “realisation” (1969 for the moon case, with the Apollo landings).

According to Gardiner, we are now in the “speculation” stage of building a warp drive, following a mathematical proposal in 1994 by Miguel Alcubierre for making a “warp bubble” around a spacecraft, contracting space ahead of it and expanding it behind the craft. The craft surfs along in its bubble, without ever technically breaking light’s speed limit, but reaching its destination faster than a light beam forced to travel around the bubble.

That all sounded great, but I wanted to know if anyone actually had any ideas for how to practically implement this. One speaker, Richard Obousy, promised that he had the answer. His method was based on the string theory notion that there are extra spatial dimensions. All you need to build a warp drive, said Obousy, is to manipulate the size of the cosmological constant in front of and behind the craft, by contracting and expanding the curled up extra dimensions respectively, to build your warp bubble. Ok, I said, but how would you actually set about contracting and expanding the curled up extra dimensions—given that we don’t even know they exist? He wasn’t sure, he replied, as it’s still a work in progress...

At that point I lost interest in his warp drive. However, since then Obousy has published his work on the warp drive, so you can check it out, along with a video of one of his talks, on youtube.

I didn’t follow up the warp drive meeting, or think much more about it until the recent hype around the new Star Trek film. But thinking back, one talk, by Claudio Maccone of the International Academy of Astronautics, did make me stop and think. He didn’t make any bold claims, and he didn’t have any speculative blueprints. But he did make a plea to physicists on behalf of engineers: sort out your math. The problem with attempting to build any kind of warp drive, he said, was that engineers and computer scientists are baffled by mathematical conventions that physicists use, for instance, their use of natural units, in which certain physical constants (the speed of light, Planck’s constant...) are set equal to 1. At the moment, he said, progress was being hampered because scientists in different disciplines simply don’t understand each other’s conventions. Put another way, if you want a warp drive, Spock and Scotty need to speak the same language.

this post has been edited by the forum administrator

report post as inappropriate

Red Shirt wrote on May. 12, 2009 @ 19:53 GMT
In answer to a critical question, I believe the collective noun for Star Trek stories is a "spocktrum".

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on May. 19, 2009 @ 00:29 GMT
Quantum theory makes the warp drive unlikely. The Alcubierre warp drive requires negative energy. Quantum mechanically this means there are no lower bounded states. This is a disaster, for it means mass-energy can fall into an endless well and produce a huge amount of energy. it is related to Dyson's observation that letting electric charge e ---> ie i = sqrt{-1} results in radiation from the vacuum.

Only a decent theory of quantum gravity will tell us for sure, but my bet is that macroscopic wormholes and warp drives are not possible.

Lawrence B. Crowell

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe/wulphstein@gmail.com wrote on May. 19, 2009 @ 17:47 GMT
Lawrence,

If you can change the speed of light by understanding how the speed of light is enforced, new things become possible. Of course, even if you could, getting a mass to achieve 100c (100 times speed of light) appears to require insanely high energies: K= 1/2mv2 = 1/2 m(100c)2 = 5000mc2. Warp drive accidents would result in very dramatic explosive events.

But there is another way...

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny wrote on May. 19, 2009 @ 19:37 GMT
Hi all,

Personnally if it exists a super velocity ,it will be for the rotation of the quantum spheres around themselves ,those velocities are proportional with mass .

In our physical Universe and its laws the light velocity which is linear is maximum I think .But for quantum spheres around themselves it's an other story .I see these spheres and the velocities of rotations like foundamental ,all is in a logic of rotation .The frequences ,the polarities,the senses , the volumes of spheres ,the fields ,...in fact those velocities are like codes of comportment.It d be interesting to know the quantum architecture of spheres for water for exemple and the liquid comportment on Earth with its parameters .Why H2O is H2O ,what is the spheres architecture and their velocities of rotation at 30 degrees celsius for exemple and what is the velocities of rot for 100 degrees celsius and 0 .

If we take the cosmological numbers of spheres and their volumes ,more an universal law about mv like a constant quant/cosmol ,thus it's possible to know the specific architecture of water like gauge ,or H ,it's there the chemestry is important and the stability of molecules .

About energy ,the maximum is everywhere in maximum quantity after different steps in the quantum architecture towards the wall .At this limit all has the same maximum .

It's interesting this link if we consider the quantum Universe and the cosmological universe ,In this logic ,time is a part of the increase of mass and energy in the physical Universe in evolution .Thus it's always a question of limits towards walls in the quantum dynamic and the cosmological evolution .

The maximum energy is in all things with its limits of perception .

It's a very important foundamental because the applications are incredible .

It's the message of E =mc² all has the maximum quantity of energy .

In my model I perceive the light like a chief orchestra ,the light begins of the center of our Universe ,towards centers towards ultim cosmological membran sphere ,the curvature by gravity implies a spherization of all ,of the light .

The Light is like an ultim frequence of evolution.Thus like a constant of evolution like the time ,both of them are constants of evolution .They won't change I think .The space on the other side changes its volume in time,expansion and accretion.

In this logic of centers ,the comportments of our Universal center are so far of us but so intriguing ,it's there the ultim code .All is linked with this universal center where all begins ,began .

I don't imagine too whormholes and warp drives like possible .

Sincerely

Steve

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on May. 19, 2009 @ 23:38 GMT
The speed of light is an absolute invariant. The "real McCoy" author kept saying dx^4 = icdt, which is a trivial statement but is worth considering. Everything is moving the speed of light locally, and it is really just a way of comparing a meter stick measure of one dimension in space with the fourth dimension of time.

General relativity is a bit odd, for locally in a flat Lorentx frame the speed of light is an invariant. Yet glocally points of space can be dragged or moved by almost anyway imaginable. In cosmology points on the spatial surface of the universe can slide apart with v = Hd, H = hubble constant and d = distance. The CMB limit is about 75 billion light years away, and this means the points of space frome where we observe these photons from are sliding away at about six times the speed of light! This is also how black holes can form. In these cases we are comparing physics between two frames which are not mutually the same or the same Lorentz frame. It is also interesting that photons from the CMB limit can reach us!!! Very strange indeed, but it does work out.

The warp drive does some sliding of spatial points. It compresses the distance between points in a small region in front of a flat region (inside the warp bubble) and expands spatial distances behind the flat region in the bubble. So in a funny way this does amount to adjusting the speed of light by playing with the curvature of spacetime. Yet, this leads to some pathologies, primarily it violates the Hawking Penrose energy condition, particularly the weak condition T^{00} >= 0. If this momentum-energy T^{00} is determined by quantum fields T^{00} < 0 leads to some very troubling problems with quantum theory.

Lawrence B. Crowell

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe/wulphstein@gmail.com wrote on May. 20, 2009 @ 07:16 GMT
Lawrence,

Lawrence,

The mathematical physics is completely correct as far as can see. But it’s not being interpreted correctly. I offer a succinct interpretation that can explain QM, GR, space, mass, time and String Theory. Just give me a few sentences to appeal to your interest.

The Laws of physics in free space have to be implemented somehow; to say they are Platonic absolutes is to suggest a mysterious cause. All of the mathematical physics is correct, but only part of it represents the a priori phenomena; the question is, which part? Consider two “Action at-a-distance” phenomena, Newtonian gravity and Coulomb’s law; what does it take to implement this kind of phenomena? In special relativity, two inertial frames with some relative velocity experience absolute speed of light, but peculiar temporal affects? What is the connection between them that is capable of transmitting information between the two frames? And finally, wave mechanics and Schrödinger’s equation is more than suggestive of wavy objects.

The real a priori objects that show up everywhere in the mathematics, are one dimensional string-like objects. An over simplification would be that every particle in the universe is connected to every other particle by a string. The string can transmit information and energy at the speed of light, c = v = sqrt (Tension/density). Strings are straight and are under tension; they can vibrate. More accurately, particles are “string” hubs with a finite, more reasonable number of connections. Rest mass is dependent upon the number of strings attached to the particle; a proton would have about (1/6E-27/9E-31) 1800x the number of strings passing through it than an electron would have. Photons would be vibrations/disturbances that propagate along the string and spread out across many strings. The mechanism that explains probabilistic detection remains unknown. The strings have peculiar properties. They are probability amplitudes. They pass through each other (so as to avoid knotting). They implement action at-a-distance forces. There lengths can and will change as particles move around.

1. Twin slit experiments can be explained as the photon energy (from even a single photon) causing the already present string paths to vibrate.

2. Elaborate and hard to imagine mental constructs can simplify into sophisticated 3D networks whose links transmit disturbances at the speed of light.

3. Fields, which are described with waves anyway, become collections of strings.

4. …

As for warp drives and changing the speed of light, one would have to change the properties of the strings (something I don't know how to do, yet).

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe/wulphstein@gmail.com wrote on May. 20, 2009 @ 07:28 GMT
Strings are allowed to rotate along their axis (like logs rotating in the river).

If mass is the consequence of the number of strings attached to a particle, then black holes can be desrbided as the maximum number of strings for a given volume; all of these strings are under tension with everything else in the universe. This idea relates quantity of strings to mass and gravitational attraction. There really is a weave of space-time.

Please challenge me if you don't like my idea. I would like to figure out where the interpretation doesn't work.

report post as inappropriate

Ray Munroe wrote on May. 20, 2009 @ 12:22 GMT
Hi Spheric Steve,

Section 3.2 of my E12 TOE predicts charged scalar fermions, ie. TACHYONS!

Theoretically, these charged tachyons radiate electromagnetic energy until they asymptotically approach zero energy = infinite velocity (if our equations for Special Relativity can be applied to imaginary masses). Numbers like zero and infinity make me nervous - there is probably a quantum and/ or Dirac Large Number limit. These tachyons are created and annihilated in pairs.

Could we control tachyons inside a gravitational bottle? It would be the gravitational equivalent of using a magnetic bottle (such as a tokamak) to confine plasma. If we could contain tachyons thus, we may be able to release them such that we can steer our spaceship. Could we envelope our spaceship with a tachyonic field and trick Gravity into thinking that the entire spaceship is a tachyon? And could we steer such a spaceship?

To Jason’s point, we still do not understand the full consequences of Strings and Quantum Entanglement…

By the way, your rotating fundamental spheres are angular momentum, not linear momentum. I do not think they say anything about the speed of light. I suspect the Universal Foundation has a String/ Sphere dual nature.

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny wrote on May. 20, 2009 @ 19:44 GMT
Hi Dr Cosmic Ray ,

Happy to read you again .

A duality between spheres and strings ,it's interesting indeed ,if I imagine a closed circle membran and a sphere membran ,it's relevent about the frequences ,vibrations and harmonization in Time Space evolution.

What is interesting too is the different step before ,the different volume too ,inside the sphere too .

The quantum architecture in this logic is correlated with cosmological spheres and its volumes ,ratios and proportions .

Just for fun ,let's imagine a sphere with a kind of ultim liquid inside and a membran betwenn math/phys world ,and a code of becoming if I can say .

with those rotations of spheres ,many forms of complementarity are possible .

The rotation and this kind of incompressible liquid imply a specific comportment .

But In a global point of vue ,I see the foundamental in the sphere ,with a big big majority ,a string is divisible ,a sphere no ,it's the perfect balance between strenghts and that everywhere in our physical universe .

Dear Ray ,

could you tell me more about a tachyon ,I have difficulties to imagine it .

Is this supravelocity is linear in this hypothesis ?

thus I understand the time travel hypothesis and the check of futur and past,but really impossible for me to have possibilities to travel in Time .

I think it's more interesting to focus on Space and the check of energy ,it s logic in an evolution point of vue with this time constant .

You say (hihihi me too) Numbers like zero and infinity make me nervous ,

personnally I think zero is a human invention ,the infinity is behind our walls .Thus two human inventions and that to imagine the limits of perceptibility .

I use zero but I don't imagine it ,I use infinity but I don't imagine it hihihi

The zero don't exist .like a mirror of the reality ,we can break this mirror ,hihi ...

friendly

Steve

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on May. 21, 2009 @ 00:31 GMT
The inclusion of string theory and anything else does not change the problem of the speed of light. The warpdrive exists mathematically by violating the Hawking-Penrose energy condition T^{00} < 0. This causes all sorts of trouble for quantum mechanics. If this condition T^{00} < 0 holds it also means that wormholes and even time machines can exist. We are all familiar with the paradoxes of time travel.

I don't think that the universe is self-contradicting. To avoid causality paradoxes with time travel is a tricky thing to do. Quantum gravity under these conditions would be extremely difficult to formulate. It is hard enough as it is! I suppose in physics we can't ever say something is absolutely impossible, but I do think we can say certain things are very improbable or implausible. Warp drives, wormholes, Krasnykov tubes, time travel and so forth are I think unlikely.

Lawrence B. Crowell

report post as inappropriate

Ray Munroe wrote on May. 22, 2009 @ 01:12 GMT
Dear Spheric Steve,

Consider the equation (pc)^2=E^2-(mc^2)^2 with imaginary mass (a tachyon), such that -m^2>0. Kinematics demand that a low-energy tachyon travels infinitely fast, while a very energetic tachyon "slows" down and asymptotically approaches the speed of light, so that its speed is always more than c. Electrically charged tachyons must radiate electromagnetic radiation, which reduces their energy and increases their velocity. (Yes, it sounds backwards, but tachyons are like that).

You know how I feel about the number "infinity"... I was an undergraduate student at Florida State University when Paul Dirac was a Professor Emeritus there. I will continue to carry on Dirac's Large Number Hypothesis...

Can we use these exotic particles to propel a spaceship? I'm not sure. Could Planck or Einstein have predicted the impact of Quantum Mechanics on our modern lifestyles and economy over 100 years ago? I'm not sure.

One of my friends at NASA was playing around with the idea of stepping through a multi-dimensional (pick a number 10, 11, or 12 dimensions?) doorway into another time and/ or place in the Universe. The idea is that there may be a higher-dimensional short-cut versus the standard four dimensions. I have doubts about that approach because hyperspace is more likely to be small and require high access energies; rather than inflated, invisible, and require low access energies.

Have Fun!

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny wrote on May. 22, 2009 @ 09:21 GMT
Hi Dr Cosmic Ray ,

I read ....congratulations .You are incredible .

Dirac Was an incredible mathematician and a searcher of truth ,the secret is there I think .

His Hypothesis is relevant about our limits .

In my quantum model and the cosmological link ,the numbers of stars ,planets ,moons ,....are so important ,I don't see an other universality for the quantum architecture and its rotations of spheres .

This quantum architecture is like a code of becoming in space time evolution .

You say "Can we use these exotic particles to propel a spaceship? I'm not sure. Could Planck or Einstein have predicted the impact of Quantum Mechanics on our modern lifestyles and economy over 100 years ago? I'm not sure."

So many secrets there in this local mechanic .The increase of energy towards walls ....all has the maximum quantity of energy but before the check of fields....it's the same with our global energy system by nuclear ,where are we ,still far of the wall .Furthermore our global economic system decrease the velocity of evolution and thus the technology,always this individualism against the complementarity .

The quantum mechanics has many secrets to discover ,personnally I think That it's possible to check the space but not the time ,a, interesting point of vue is the decrease of space in an contraction evolution ,thus the space between mass decrease thus intresting for the check of space .

If we consider this ultim sphere ,this ultim harmony between mass ,it's so fascinating for the interactions .The human species is a explorer ,a catalyzer ,a discover,....we must check the velocity ,the mobility ,the communication.

Sometimes I extrapolate the lifes in our Universe ,the astrobiology is fascinating ,how are those intelligences ,how are their evolutions ,hope they don't make the same silly things than us on Earth.In all case ,one day we shall communicate with us and more ,always the complementarity between all like in our quantum architecture and its codes .all lives ,all evolves ,all towards harmony .The light in this logic is the ultim frequence ,and the universal center where all begins .

It's a pleasure Ray to discuss with you .

friendly

Steve

report post as inappropriate

Daniel wrote on Jun. 8, 2009 @ 10:23 GMT
and again I find theory with its head in the clouds, but that's what makes dreaming fun. now warping space on that scale isn't as easy as it sounds. it would require a large amount of mass (or E equivalent) perpetually warping the space as well as moving on the up slide of the warped space (think of E principles for this) the worst part is the distortive affect it would have on the craft itself. and thats just for movement. For tricking FTL travel without moving FTL u would have to warp time a huge amount (probably doing both at the same time lol) which is even more fun. warp travel Possible YES probable no . imagine riding a grave wave on the edge of an event horizon without getting pulled in or left behind because it to would have to move. then u have to stop it would be really hard surfin.

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe/wulphstein@gmail.com wrote on Jul. 1, 2009 @ 18:41 GMT
This warp drive conundrum is becoming an obsession. Since physics, as physicists understand it, is not very conducive to FTL travel, we have to think about how the universe is constructed/assembled.

From a QM point of view, I believe that prior to the Big Bang, there was nothingness; this is equivalent to V(r) = infinity. In other words, the non-existent nothingness in which the universe expands, does not allow particles, light or anything to exist in it's n-dimensional space. When the Big Bang occured, the universe (space-time expanded). Space-time is, for lack of better language, made of something (strings perhaps). It is the expansion of this something that reworks the potential energy topography to something less then infinity. As the universe expands and cools, the background energy approaches the zero point energy. I believe that the substance of which space-time is made, creates the background potential energy topography for n-dimensions. Time is nothing more than the fact that energy flows across the available states similar to the way that water seeks its own level.

With the tesselation/crystal approach, you don't get the expansion of space because crystals don't really move. I really like the idea of a molten polymer because superstrings are similar to long carbon chains.

I like the idea that superstrings can have a large number of states such that the low energy states are conducive to three spatial dimensions and allow for rotation as well. In the same way that a plastic cup holds water, is it possible to say that a superstring/polymer-like universe can hold energy in ways that behaves like Hilbert space?

So why are planck's constant, speed of light, etc absolutes? I don't know yet. But I'm trying to get at two energy topographies, one for the standard model and one for hyperspace. I'm willing to bet that trying to get around in hyperspace, using tachyon fields, will get you lost very easily unless you use a lot of energy to direct your spaceship to exactly where you want to go. I'm suggesting that a hyperspace has Quantum behavior in the sense that a detection of a particle in regular space is a parallel to an accurate hyperspace jump. Unless you put a lot of energy into the jump, you will not complete your jump anywhere close to your intended destination (in spite of the fact that you jumped 1 million lightyears away).

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe wrote on Jul. 2, 2009 @ 17:09 GMT
Steve,

I was reading an article about unexplained forces acting on space probes.

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/space/2008-02-29
-nasa-spacecraft-anomalies_N.htm?csp=34

When one of the scientists suggested that gravity might be effected by the rotation of the earth, I thought of you.

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny wrote on Jul. 3, 2009 @ 07:38 GMT
Hello Jason ,

Thank you very much ,it's nice .

I am going to read it .

Friendly

Steve

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny wrote on Jul. 4, 2009 @ 09:16 GMT
Hi Jason ,

It's indeed interesting .Those anomalies are relevants ,

If I take a simple constant m v x =m'v'x'...it's interesting about the variables of velocities of rotations who imply thus different mass thus gravity .

It's logic in this optic to have this kind of problems .

The architecture of gravity and fields in a spherical logic is necessery with some adapted new parameters and variables .With this kind of sphere with spheical fields inside and those parameters,we could adapt and change parameters .If some weak changements of the velocity of rotation of a body are evident thus the mass and gravity too have these changements and that proportionaly.

I think that all is correlated with these rotations of spheres and that in the quantum and cosmological dimensions .

The gauge is possible with thoses rotations and that to have the best architecture .

I have a unknew (with unknews)in this equation mvx like a constant .m the mass of the sphere ,v the velocity of rotations of the sphere ,and x a variable due to the nature of the sphere (liquid ,solid ,gaz,proportion,density,not compressibility ,volume,pression,......more the complexification and the spherization thus the increasing of mass and the decreasing of space ).

I have some questions about the sphercal laws .

Some parameters can indeed change with the centers (planets,stars,galaxies....)thus we can extrapolate with galactic center and its laws ,stars and its laws ......

To elaborate correctly this universal constant ,I need datas and helps of course but the whole is there .

This new constant will permit to link all I think .The rotations of spheres like a driving force of the harmonization towards ultim sphere.

Sincerely

Steve

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe/wulphstein@gmail.com wrote on Jul. 11, 2009 @ 02:26 GMT
In the quest to come up with the hyperdrive (or something plausible), I've been looking very closely at mesons/baryons/hadrons (strong force mediators and quark stuff). There are six kinds of quarks + their antiquarks for a total of 12. I had the following idea. What if there is yet another symmetry for sub light speed/FTL. This will again double the number of quarks. I'm talking about tachyon quarks. When I tried to figure out what their properties would be, I thought of gravitons and Higg particles. If I imagined that gravitons and Higg particles are really tachyon quarks, would I be violating any physics principles?

I'm trying to come up with some UFO physics, something to explain hyperdrives and the bending of space-time (Alcubierre drive). The idea I have is to take a semiconductor material, or a metal, and replace some of the proton/neutrons with tachyon quarks. I thought it might be a possible way to couple electromagnetic forces with gravity-like forces and space curvature in a logical way.

Is there any reason to discount the idea that gravitons and higgs particles are tachyon quarks?

report post as inappropriate

Todd wrote on Jul. 14, 2009 @ 02:45 GMT
Check this out...

http://interstellarjourney.blip.tv/

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe/wulphstein@gmail.com wrote on Aug. 7, 2009 @ 15:15 GMT
It's not quite a hyperdrive; but a wormhole with moveable gates would work just as well.

You fly your space shuttle (sub light speed) into the entrance way. Upon crossing the threshold of the wormhome, your shuttle is coated by a protected boundary that isolates the craft and crew (in standard space-time) from the hyperspace wormhole. Once inside, the wormhole treats the globular object (the coated shuttle) as a "mass" in a pendulum. When the wormhole/hyperspace globular object is released and allowed to move, it accellerates up to multiples of c. At the halfway point, it reaches its maximum velocity with zero accelleration, then it starts slowing down. The shuttle, relative to the protective boundary which the wormhole sees as a globular "mass", the shuttle is at rest and not accellerating. Towards the other end of the wormhole, the shuttle is slowing down to a stop. The shuttle passes through the exit where the protective boundary is removed. The gates on either end can be moved without changing the 'altered' laws of physics of the worm hole.

Yes, I know that the physics community doesn't have the slightest clue how to do any of this. Yes, I know about the tv show StarGate. Yes, I know that any real physicist would repeat the chant "that's impossible, that's science fiction". On a positive note, I don't have to worry about steering or propulsion.

report post as inappropriate

Ray Munroe wrote on Aug. 7, 2009 @ 15:42 GMT
Jason,

Back in the 90's, one of my NASA colleagues (now a Prof Emeritus at UAH) was trying to combine the Star Gate concept with String Theory. His basic idea is that we might be able to find a multidimensional shortcut between doorways. Your basic idea is that we might be able to find a (wormhole/ multidimensional?) super highway with a speed limit greater than c between doorways. The net effect seems similar, but the Physics is different. I wonder if an observer could determine that the Physics was different?

In the Nineteenth Century, travelling to the Moon was also science fiction...

Have Fun!

Ray Munroe

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny wrote on Aug. 7, 2009 @ 19:03 GMT
Let's go for fun and science fiction ,

A door like in Stargate ,and a wormhole ,thus the rotations implies gravity thus possibility to coordonate the frequances of a wormhole and create a symetric space thus a possible teleportation with a good architecture .

Don't forget too to calculate the quantum spheres and the nature of the polarization ,here a human ,Quantum spheres .......HCNO ....cells ...human

Thus the check of rotations is important to harmonize the frequences .

Thus the spherical fields must be very well calculate and the reproduction must be well teleported .I don't want be like in the film the fly.Thus the quantum coded spheres and their rotations must be well replicated .because all is linked by rotations and spherical fields .To reproduce an human ,it's difficult No .We are not God in fact .

Sincerely

Steve

report post as inappropriate

Ray Munroe wrote on Aug. 7, 2009 @ 19:10 GMT
Dear Steve,

THE FLY? LOL!

OK - I'll let you doublecheck the calculations. I sure don't want to end up like that guy!

Ray

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe wrote on Aug. 8, 2009 @ 02:21 GMT
Not teleportation. Pendulum Wormhole! In Las Vegas at one of the Casinoes, they have a ride called the Sky Screamer. They strap you down and lift you up in this pendulum system. They live you up about 150 feel, and then they release you. You swing back and forth about 8 or 9 times. Ok, I did scream like a little girl, but it was so much fun. It's a little bit like that.

Nobody knows how to really manipulate space-time without using black holes and singularities. I look at the various electromagnetic field equations and I see charges with velocities crossing field (perpendicular) to create forces (perpendicular to the plane); these cross products give me ideas. Yes, you guessed it; I'm looking for hyper dimensional forces that can shape space-time. I'll let you all know if I come up with anything interesting.

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny wrote on Aug. 8, 2009 @ 08:48 GMT
Hi Jason,

Could you tell me more about a pendulum wormhole and the electro magnetic field equations.

It's interesting all your extrapolations .You are born with an incredible creativity.

The plan ,the symmetry and the perpendicularity are relevants .

Regards

Steve

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe/wulphstein@gmail.com wrote on Aug. 8, 2009 @ 19:37 GMT
Hi Steve,

I'm still working on how to actually build a Pendulum Wormhole. Within the cylindrical region of the wormhole, I'm ok with allowing the physics constants to vary, symmetrically, along the pathway. The shuttle must be enclosed within a boundary to protect it from the extreme laws of physics inside of the wormhole. I do not want to use black holes and other huge mass-energies if it can be avoided.

I was thinking about how E&M has coupling between electricity and magnetism; in comparison, mass/gravity has no such coupling, that is obvious. I want to assume that electromagnetism/photons are a separate phenomena from mass/gravity. If electromagnetism is implemented by virtual photons, then mass/gravity would be implemented by virtual Higgs particles and virtual gravitons. But I'm not entirely convinced that they really are point like particles at all. In fact, gravity doesn't seem like a point-like interaction at all.

As for creating wormholes, there is going to have to be a hyperdimensional force involved of some kind. In electromagnetism, the Pointing vector S=E X B (times some constants). I'm looking for a hyper-force that has manifestations in the space-time + hyperspace in a similar kind of cross product way.

I'm going under the assumption that a solid-state crystal picture in not correct. The balloon/giant photon/5D wave-front idea is more compatible with the Big Bang and warping of space-time. Furthermore, I am assuming that QM is absolute and GR is a construct of QM. In other words, I think entire universes can be created and manipulated, but the multiverse is stuck with QM, like it or not.

As for the Quaternion model of a scalar energy dimension + 3 spatial dimensions, if you imagine a boiling pot of water, I believe that virtual photons behave similarly to the bubbles. I believe the the virtual photons (virtual Higgs/gravitons) are manifesting space and an energy dimension by their intereactions. Time/causality only occur if the virtual photons (Higgs/gravitons) are allowed to transmit their momentum/frequency information; kx - wt.

If a pendulum wormhole were to be created, virtual photons would not be of any use; so don't expect lightning or radio contact from the wormhole. It might have to be a region of gravitons/Higgs particles only. The two dimensional surface/boundaries that isolate the wormhole entrance and shuttle are another physics I'll have to think about. If your worried about observers on the other side of the boundary (by observers I mean quantum particles and fields), I'm willing to restrict anything from crossing the boundary. In fact, if electromagnetism does not exist inside of the wormhole, then the boundaries will have to be opaque.

I'll keep thinking about it. If I notice any 6D+time bosonic gravitational forces anywhere, I'll let you know.

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe/wulphstein@gmail.com wrote on Aug. 8, 2009 @ 20:13 GMT
Hypothetically, if two shuttles entered from each side of the pendulum wormhole, each with the appropriate protective boundary, if the two shuttles pass through each other at velocities exceeding the speeding of light, then interaction or a collision cannot occur. A collision requires electrostatic interaction, which requires virtual photons. But photons can only interact at the speed of light. For two shuttles passing each other at faster than light speeds, an electrostatic interaction would not have time to occur. I'm assuming the shuttles have masses that are too small to be gravitationally relavent.

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny wrote on Aug. 8, 2009 @ 21:11 GMT
Hi Jason,

I understand better .

I d like ask you one thing about the bosons de Higgs ,what do you think about its mass ,its linear velocity and the velocity of rotations .

Let's admit this weak interactions and the Einstein Bose Stat .

This equation thus n=g(i)/exp{Ei-u/K(B)T-1}.

We see the Thermodynamical balance ,in the Bose Einstein condensate ,the weak temperature are in coherence too .

If I take my link with rotating spheres ,a big vel of rot of the sphere implies a small mass ,thus the light has the maximum in the two sens ,linear and around themselves,I d say what these bosons have a big velocity of rot and a proportional weak mass .

If we change the temperature ,like a condensate ,thus we change all velocities of rot of quantum spheres ,thus the thermodynamic and gravitational effects are invariants in their balances .

If the gauge is the light ,the graviton and the higgs bosons are how in this case and do you think there is symetric frequenes .And how keeping the frequences informations .

If one is attractive ,the other repulsive,what I find impossible is the time travel ,but a space travel is interesting .

Let's take a paper ,one page ,you take the plan between two points ,for exemple 25 cm ,and you approach the point of the plan .The two points are 0.1 cm .It's like we cut the Einstein Rosen Bridge and create a circular vortex between the two points ,the two gravitational singularities but not with time but with space .

What do you think Jason ?

Sincerely

Steve

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny wrote on Aug. 8, 2009 @ 21:28 GMT
I think an other thing too .

Let's admit a big attraction thus mass of a Black Holes for exemple ,If the elementary particles are spheres and what the maximum vel of rot if for the light ,thus when we go above this maximum we have thus one a BH or 2 a WH ,due to the sens of rotations ,always + and -

Thus in this cases ,these singularities are relevants about the sense.

Steve

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny wrote on Aug. 9, 2009 @ 11:52 GMT
Hi Jason,

The gravitational waves and their frequences are the secrets in the earliest state and our actual state .

The spherical symetries thus like a rock in the water .Always the symetries of rotation .

I return to the quantum rotations of spheres implying mass and the increasing of mass thus an increase of the curves of the Space Time .

The poincarré Birkhoff theomes and the density is relevant I think .

All depends of this mass always.If the energy is diffused by these waves ???

The aim is to find its velocities in fact and thus ...

What I find relevant is the evolution point of vue and the diffusion of these waves since the beginning ,here the Big Bang Theory or a multiplication of el part ,the general relativity is on the road always .

Let's take now the spin 0,1,2 .and the results of the extrapolations ,thus the restr relativity must be adapted ,the rotations of the spheres and its ponctuality is totatly different than a linear velocity ,in this case the rest relativity is not applicable .

It's important to encircle the real universal dynamic of gravitational wave and the graviton ,the ultim rotating codes sphere or spheres .The Linear velocity ,the gauge ,the limits ,and the rotations which implies mass.

In your case of extrapolations thus between two systems ,one + and one - ,a BH and a WH ,can be optimized if you insert these foundamenatls I think .

Sincerely

Steve

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny wrote on Aug. 9, 2009 @ 12:18 GMT
The graviton and the magneton .

In my model ,the incompressibility is important ,if I take a Riemann Sphere and an incompressible nature like an optimized liquid ,we can insert two the Bohr Idea .

We can insert the sense too for the polarizations ,and the topology with the universal center .

The quantum fields theory depends of all that ,the rotations of the quantum spheres pontually and orbital .

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny wrote on Aug. 9, 2009 @ 12:30 GMT
What do you think about the photon spin of 1 ,this Boson is the gauge of limits for all I think ,when we go above this two limits ,linear ,and rot .The ponctuality appears No ? Fortunaly for the stability of polarizations ....

Steve

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe/wulphstein@gmail.com wrote on Aug. 10, 2009 @ 16:23 GMT
Steve,

I haven't forgotten about you. I has just been too busy around here to be able to sit down and explain more clearly what I mean. But I intend to this afternoon.

I strongly believe that the universe is not made of mathematics. It is, however, made of quantum mechanics. The tools and materials to create protective shells of universes and wormholes lies buried within quantum mechanics. I will explain more, later today.

report post as inappropriate

tnisbet wrote on Aug. 11, 2009 @ 02:57 GMT
More videos in the series have been posted on

http://interstellarjourney.blip.tv/

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe/wulphstein@gmail.com wrote on Aug. 11, 2009 @ 04:44 GMT
Hi Steve,

I've been thinking a lot about wormhole physics. After trying to explain these ideas to my girlfriend and her brother, I realized I need to make this as simple as possible.

Our physical universe can be considered like an expanding balloon. The Cosmological constant can be compared to the air pressure of the balloon that causes it to expand. 3d space can be compared to the 2D surface of a balloon. Quantum particles can be described with superstrings within a parallel pair of D-branes (effectively a conduction band). These d-branes are separated by a thickness d that can be compared to the thickness of a balloon; but this thickness 'd' is a placeholder for additional work.

The Higgs field, mass, speed of light, gravitational constant, and charge are all properties of the 3D surface of the expanding/contracting 4D balloon-like universe. Objects that can expand/contract subject to the Cosmological constant are called, by me, for now, Inflatons. Our physical universe is an Inflaton. Inflatons are quantum particles that, if stimulated with radiation (details not known), can expand. Programming the laws of physics for an Inflaton are left for later discussion. Once programmed, the inflaton has to be collapsed back to a singularity (quantum particle) to have it's physical laws reprogrammed. Part of the radiation will be used to add quantum particles (superstrings) to the inflaton. While generally hyperspherical in shape, they can be stretched into stable wormholes and anchored at both ends. More info to follow...

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny wrote on Aug. 11, 2009 @ 19:36 GMT
Hi jason,

It's a good idea ,the inflaton.

The aim now is to class the particles which can do that .

I see better your point of vue about superstrings and D-branes .

The reprogrammation is important .

I have some ideas I will post them .

Until soon

Steve

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe/wulphstein@gmail.com wrote on Aug. 11, 2009 @ 21:29 GMT
Steve,

While conservation of linear momentum is like a ball and chain to the hyperdrive, I dare not get rid of it. If I did, my whole line of conjecture would be lost in hyperspace.

For a shuttle to enter a pendulum wormhole, it must be able to preserve its own laws of physics, or face disintigration. The pendulum wormhole has its physics streamlined to allow maximum linear velocity in both directions. Since various subatomic particles are not stable in our universe, I expect particle stability to be an important technical challenge to overcome. There will exist particles/materials that are stable within the wormhole. Those particles/materials need to completely coat the shuttle; both to provide something that can accellerate in a wormhole, and to provide part of the protective barrier around the shuttle. Since, E=mc2 in our universe, I would hate to think how much energy it would take to supply enough material mass to completely cover the shuttle. If E = m(c')2 where c' (speed of light in the wormhole) = 100c, the material-energy cost will be enormous.

In a previous post, I suggested that electromagnetism and photons do not exist in the pendulum wormhole. Does this mean that mass cannot exist? I believe it takes something like a Higgs field to provide mass. But a Higgs field is described as the quantity of interactions that resist accelleration.

In the interest of purely fun speculation, is there any chance that a Higgs field manifests as momentum eigenstates that exist across all of space? Let's pretend that the 10 lightyear pendulum wormhole has momentum eigenstates in (1Kg)(1m/s) = 1Kgm/s increments. Let's pretend that each of these eigenstates spans the entire length of the wormhole. Whatever rotational eigenstates there could be, are blocked out, for now. For some wormhole material moving along the length of the wormhole, there is no reason to even consider it's mass unless a change in momentum occurs. Due to the spacing of the momentum eigenstates, the mass is just the energy cost associated with changing momentum. The relationship between measured distance and momentum do not always appear to be 1:1. I'm sure you're familiar with X=X0 + vt + 1/2at2. While it would be nice to just talk about velocity eigenstates that span all of space, conservation of momentum deserves due consideration in terms of mass/Higgs fields and the warping of space.

What I am looking for is a quantum mechanics wave description for momentum. Yes, I know that in quantum mechanics, momentum operator p = -i hbar d/dx. I'm just wondering if it's possible to break up space into momentum eigenstates, such that transitions between these states will point to the need for 'mass'.

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe/wulphstein@gmail.com wrote on Aug. 12, 2009 @ 02:29 GMT
Steve,

I hope you don't mind. I'm just thinking out loud. If a Higgs field (mass giving field) is unique to each universe, than can linear momentum still be conserved? Or do we have to restrict such interactions? Since only top and bottom quarks are stable, botton is only somewhat stable; truth, beauty, strange and charmed only last for a few nanoseconds before they decay into something else. I have suggested that top and bottom quarks (and other quantum particles stable in our universe), would become unstable in another hypothetical universe with different laws of physics.

To my knowledge, nobody can explain why some quarks are stable but others are not. Quark stability/instability has something to do with the innate characteristics of space-time. As far as momentum conservation, p1 (the shuttle momentum) = m1v1 in our universe. If the shuttle flies into the gateway of a wormhole without any kind of barrier or shield to preserve its laws of physics, then the shuttle's atoms, protons, neutrons and electrons will undergo a change into some other kind of material; or be converted entirely into energy. But will p2 (momentum of the shuttle in the wormhole) still equal p1?

Let's make it easy. Let's imagine a proton in our universe with a momentum of p1=m1v1. It crosses the threshold into the wormhole with altered laws of physics. If c'=100c, then, to solve the problem, a proton's mass is converted into energy. 938Mev/c2. In the wormhole, 1 MeV/c2 converts to 1MeV*(100)2/c'2 = 9.8TeV/c'2. If there is a stable particles in the wormhole at this energy, that's what the proton will become. If there is excess energy, it will probably scatter the proton and violate conservation of momentum.

I suggested that quantum mechanics is independent of which universe is being discussed. I do not know if that includes h-bar, as well.

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny wrote on Aug. 12, 2009 @ 08:23 GMT
Jason

It's very interesting .Your extrapolations are relevants .

It's a question of invariances and coherences always in fact .

The problem will be with the stability of systems and the conservation of codes ,moments ,....

If we take the macroscopic point of vue with our senses of perception and if we insert the microsopic point of vue ,it's relevant for the themodynamics laws .

Steve

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe/wulphstein@gmail.com wrote on Aug. 12, 2009 @ 09:28 GMT
Steve,

Yes, of course, you are absolutely right about invariance, stability of the system, etc... It is constraining to try to create the universe out of points, lines, geometric objects, spheres (sorry about that, steve). I want to abandon our preconceived notions about spatial dimensions. I don't believe that there is any absolute space or space-time. Quantum Mechanics is the absolute. We live in a bubbling brew of quantum foam. Out of all of the quantum particles in the foam, only a few different kinds represent the absolute geometric nature of the universe, the virtual photon and virtual gravitons. The rest are engaged in a continual exchange of converved quantities. Space, orientation and direction do not exist until one steps back from the boiling quantum foam. As we step back, conduction bands and higher dimensions emerge. As we step back further and further, 3D space returns to us. Each quantum particle can belong to many different groups the way an overachiever has membership in many clubs. Each "club" may be tachyonic compared to the next.

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe/wulphstein@gmail.com wrote on Aug. 13, 2009 @ 20:42 GMT
Apparently, I'm not the only one whose been thinking about wormholes.

http://nedwww.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/Carroll/frames.html

The
boiling quantum foam I've been thinking about is probably the effect of the highly tuned Cosmological constant. From what I understand, the exansion of the volume of space creates a vacuum pressure; because the Cosmological constant is perfectly tuned, quantum energy is forced into existence as a bubbling of background zero point energy. At least that is my interpretation.

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe wrote on Aug. 14, 2009 @ 02:22 GMT
Just by playing around with wormholes and some extremely simplified physics, I discovered Action and the Lagrangian. If I take a worm hole of lenght 2D (D = halfway point); accelleration of g up to the midpoint, and then -g to the other side, where g is a constant; GR inside of the wormhole is ignored to keep it really simple, I came up with some interesting equations.

L=T-V; T=1/2mv2; V=mgx. How long it takes to reach the halfway point is important, so I'm calling that time t1/2.

If my space ship has a mass m, and initial velocity zero, then it's velocity

v(t) = gt. So T(time t) = 1/2mv2 = 1/2mg2t2.

Potential energy V=mgx = mg(gt2)=mg2t2.

For L(t)=T-V=1/2mg2t2-mg2t2, I get L(t) = -1/2mg2t2.

The Action up to the halfway point is S=int(Ldt)=-(mg2/6)(t1/2)3.

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny wrote on Aug. 16, 2009 @ 09:56 GMT
Hi Jason ,

It could be well if you insert the thermodynamics constants and the Riemann zeta function but with a finite serie ,like fourier but with limits ,probably with idea of Ray about the Dirac large number .

An other possibility is to extrapolate the numbers of stars ,planets and moons with their specificities in volume ,mass ,gravity .

If you insert too the gravitational waves in a spherical optic thus .....

In the idea of Lawrence too there are many interesting tools to improve the equations .The planck unities and the link with black Hole ....

Rest with us Jason ,you are already in an other galaxy ?

Sincerely

Steve

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe/wulphstein@gmail.com wrote on Aug. 16, 2009 @ 20:25 GMT
Steve,

Yes, I guess I am in another galaxy. Thank you for noticing that.

There is so much to describe and so little time to do it in. I've been discussing hyperdrive technology and wormholes with God. I wanted to understand how the Deity creates universes. God is very handy with mathematics. God likes to use very simple mathematical relationships in ways that stump mortal minds. The Laws of Physics are absolute because they are dictated by God. It takes a significant amount of thought to be able to tie in all elements of a universe into a single absolute relationship. If the speed of light is too high, the universe can fragment into chunks. If the gravitational constant of the universe, G, is too high, everything accerates to quickly. God wants his universe to last many billions of years. He wants a nice, sturdy universe to do things with.

I am infinitely not smart enough to design a universe like God can. It would never occur to me to multiply all of the physics constants that describe a universe, and set them equal to 1. That number would include the number of dimensions, as well. I'm not sure if the speed of light is counted once as a dimension and again as a physics constant. Something like,

4cG(h-bar)(Cosmological constant)=1.

God understands the need and desire to get around the universe quickly. This physical universe exists within hyperspace. Some of the materials that we will need to change physical constants are only available in hyperspace. When the time is right, we will be able to create wormholes by changing the nature of gravity, temporarily. We will choose a star we want to go to. If we can detect AlphaCenturi's gravitatinal field, it's unique signature (something we think we can't do), we can temporarily change the characteristics of that field. In doing so, we will get there in a very short time span. I suspect there may be a hyperspace momentum limit of some sort. God doesn't want us moving planets around the galaxy and rearranging solar systems. I'm still going to use the pendulum idea for this wormhole. A(t) = A0sin[2pi(t/tp)], where tp is the time it takes to cross the wormhole to the other side.

I explained to God that humans have no comprehension of simply changing physics constants to get across space. I could only understand it if we could interact with particles, fields, spin, etc. There are tachyonic materials that exist in hyperspace. They can be made compatible with the four forces.

Look for another charge/field relationship that interacts with mass and coulombic charge.

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny wrote on Aug. 17, 2009 @ 11:02 GMT
Hi Jason ,

You say

I'm still going to use the pendulum idea for this wormhole. A(t) = A0sin[2pi(t/tp)], where tp is the time it takes to cross the wormhole to the other side.

Don't stop ,it's relevant .

What do you think about the check of rotations thus gravity .Thus the good frequences of these rotations .?

You spirituality is important ,thanks for that and your ideas .

Sincerely

Steve

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe/wulphstein@gmail.com wrote on Aug. 17, 2009 @ 22:00 GMT
Hi Steve,

I'm trying to simplify an idea I had. There are some radical assumptions, but here is the physics, very briefly. I have a wormhole/acceleration field that a c'=1015c (c = speed of light; c' = wormhole speed of light). The wormhole spans a distance L between our sun and Alpha Centuari, L = 6 light years. The acceleration field is given by a(x) = a0sin[2pi x/L]. The acceleration a0=1015m/s2.

Trying to calculate x(t), v(t), a(t) and v(x) is trickier than I thought; I may need to use parametric equations. I am treating gravitons as a special kind of tachyonic particle that smears out across space like a vibrating gravity string. But this graviton has strange properties. It's not a particle-wave; it's a particle-space. It has conserved quantities like a particle; when it obsorbs energy, it curves.

A graviton can be transmuted into another particle-space that I will call a wormion. Large numbers of wormions will develop into a wormhole. This wormhole will experience large accelerations given by the equation above. I expect 'wormions' to have a half life of about 60 seconds. One wormion will transport a unit of mass-length; I haven't decided what that unit will be, but it means it will carry a Kilogram over a lightyear of hyperspace. The extreme accelerations are not at all lethal if they are spread over a few lightyears. I am allowing a 10m/s^2 acceleration differential for a 10 meter depth.

The way I'm doing this, hyperdrives create wormholes. I haven't worked out the potential/kinetic energy, yet.

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe wrote on Nov. 24, 2009 @ 19:56 GMT
I'd like to move the FTL conversation to a more appropriate blog to make room for LHC discussion.

Dear Ray,

Thank you for hearing what I'm saying. Thank you for understanding that time-travel has to go bye-bye before we can open the door to FTL propulsion. Thank you for raising the important questions, something I've wanted to talk about for weeks. How do you interface with a...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe wrote on Nov. 24, 2009 @ 20:24 GMT
Ray,

Did you say that you had charged tachyons?

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe wrote on Nov. 24, 2009 @ 20:32 GMT
Well, it's FTL. I'm still examining it.

http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html#FTL

report post as inappropriate

Ray Munroe wrote on Nov. 24, 2009 @ 20:48 GMT
Dear Jason,

To summarize, energy conservation and causality are just two of many reasons why time travel doesn't seem reasonable.

If you want to jump from one brane (that we call space-brane) to another (that we call c'-brane), we assume that we must travel through some sort of quantum barrier.

I am concerned that information may get scrambled in this jump, and that 'entropy' may be the enemy that prevents us from using the c'-brane for FTL travel. Entropy is related to energy and time (via the 2nd law of Thermo) and space and time are related via Relativity. Perhaps it is appropriate that time travel is 'impossible' for one reason, and FTL travel is 'impossible' for a complementary reason.

We need to better understand these barriers between the space-brane and the c'-brane. Can we model these branes? Can we model information transport across these branes? I think you should pick at the problem until it beats you or you beat it. Along the way, you will probably learn this week's lottery numbers. Please remember your old buddy, Ray, when you are super-rich.

Have Fun!

Ray Munroe

report post as inappropriate

Ray Munroe wrote on Nov. 24, 2009 @ 20:51 GMT
Of course, I have charged tachyons AND colored tachyons. Which kind would you like?

Ray

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe wrote on Nov. 24, 2009 @ 21:20 GMT
Dear Ray,

Can I get a scoop of each?

Finally, someone understands what the issues are! I'm hoping to avoid brane-jumping by generating a field/shell/bubble in which the spaceship (made of space-brane particles) is enshrouded by the FTl bubble (c'-brane field). The field has to be generated using a material that exists in both the space-brane and the c'-brane. Both branes exist in the same space, but are non-compatible. I want to find a way to make them compatible. That is why I asked about charged tachyons. Probably colored tachyons will be necessary too.

I have a question about charged tachyons. Charge manifests electric and magnetic fields; virtual photons are supposed to make electric and magnetic fields operate; photons (virtual or otherwise) move at the speed of light. I expect tachyon particles to become c'-brane particles. Have you looked at how this will effect your theory of charged tachyons? Since permitivity scales electric fields, permeability scales magnetic fields, it seemed reasonable to me to use electric and magnetic flux when trying to cross a space/c'-barrier. In truth, I expect this to be extremely awkward (thus we don't observe it).

By the way, I totally agree that information content gets scrambled when crossing a space/c'-barrier. That is why I want to generate an FTL field instead of jumping to the c'-brane. The field is supposed to be null inside of the spaceship (so it doesn't disintegrate); it should extend only as far as necessary. Thrust has to be translated to the c'-brane, with equal and opposite force applied to the FTL field. The FTL field accelerates as a c'-brane object. The spaceship has zero velocity with respect to the field because it's generating the field. Whatever it takes to get the space/c' mixture to remain stable (behave itself), is going to tell us whether this will or will not work, and why.

What do you think?

report post as inappropriate

Ray Munroe wrote on Nov. 24, 2009 @ 21:47 GMT
Confining tachyons may be tricky. Perhaps we could use color charges to bind a tachyonic quark to an unstable pion, and manufacture a 'baryon' or 'meson' that is part tardonic matter and part tachyonic matter.

Otherwise, tachyons travel faster than light, and a photon couldn't confine them (unless an electromagnetic field contains so many photons that the tachyon will bump into a photon more often than not).

If we could manipulate gravitational fields, we might use those to contain our tachyons. After all, the 'action-at-a-distance' behavior of gravity implies a faster speed than c.

So we want to 'cloak' our spaceship in tachyonic matter, disappear to the spacetime world, and trick hyperspace into admitting us onto the c' superhighway.

Good Luck!

Ray

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe wrote on Nov. 24, 2009 @ 22:20 GMT
Ray,

Bingo! Consider this creative thinking. Have you ever heard of virtual computers? If a faster Pentium 4 processor can mimic the information capabilities of a 486 processor (from the early 1990's), it's only reasonable to wonder if a c'-brane can represent the entire spaceship, crew and contents as a c'-manifestation. I am counting on the No Clone of Quantum States theorem to protect us from duplication. Obviously, I also expect mechansistic processes to proceed without disruption. The translation process has to be thermodynamically observant. I just want to make sure that the field and field generator don't jump to hyperspace, but leave the rest of the spaceship behind. Remember that quantum entanglement has instantaneous-ness built into it.

OK, maybe that sounds a bit magical. But we need to look at it this way, it will help us to figure out what the real issues are, what questions we need to ask, and what experiments we need to conduct.

Pions are unstable because of weak forces, but they give off neutrinos and muons. I think some amount of dark matter is considered to be neutrinos. Neutrinos might be confined to the space-brane, or they might intermingle with a c'-brane as well. There is still a lot we don't know about them since their coupling is so minimal.

If tachyons are just c' particles, then they can be bound with c' electro-magnetic forces/fields. I just don't know if c' electric/magnetic fields/charges are related to each other. I'm hoping that they belong to the same set of something more generalized. A space brane and a c' brane have to share some common ancestry, something in common.

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Nov. 24, 2009 @ 23:54 GMT
In your paper "A Case Study" you do have a table with what might be called chromo-tachyons. I am not exactly sure what these color indices refer to. in your hypercolor paper you have the 7-fold g_2 color diagram. As I have been indicating, the centralizers g_2 and f_4 act in a sort of cojoined fashion, where the F_4 contains the gravitational content. Closed strings approach the region of enormous tidal forces in a black hole interior and transform into open strings. The gravitational modes in a left/right setting are transformed into tachyons. In this setting with the G_2 holonomy, these tachyons would become a sort of technicolored tachon. The condensate of these open strings on the M_2 brane would then have a form similar to a quanrk-gluon plasma.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

Ray Munroe wrote on Nov. 25, 2009 @ 00:08 GMT
As I understand the quantum numbers, these chromo-tachyons may exchange (massless?) gluons with each other. This isn't technicolor.

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Nov. 25, 2009 @ 00:43 GMT
Sorry for calling them technicolor. I previously wrote a post about technicolor and had that topic on mind. Yet these are SU(n) gauged particles (n = 3) and this seems to reflect a possible connection between gravitation and QCD or conformal QCD-like physics.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe wrote on Nov. 25, 2009 @ 01:10 GMT
Dear Lawrence,

You said: "As I have been indicating, the centralizers g_2 and f_4 act in a sort of cojoined fashion, where the F_4 contains the gravitational content. "

What do you mean by "gravitational content"? Do you mean that F4 contains what gravity attracts? Or do you mean that F4 is the gravitational attractor?

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Nov. 25, 2009 @ 01:39 GMT
It means that F_4 is the largest group which defines the 24-cell or tetrahedrachoron. F_4 in a quotient with D_4 ~ SO(8) and B_4 ~ SO(9), defines some of the structure of the Fano plane. Further SO(8) is contained in SO(9), of 28 and 36 dimensions respectively, out of the 52 in F_4. SO(8) contains SU(4) in a Clifford basis (look at what I wrote onClifford algebras yesterday and today. Indeed SO(6) ~ SU(4) and in a Wick rotated system we then have SU(3,1) or SU(2,2) ~ SO(4,2), where we in the second case have twistor structure and AdS_5 spacetime.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe wrote on Nov. 25, 2009 @ 05:41 GMT
Lawrence,

Solid state uses arrays of atoms to provide the repeating pattern of wavefunctions necessary to derive conduction bands, etc. Yes, of course we know all that. You did the very same thing with tetrahedrachorons to construct 4D space-time. I find it ironic that while the Scwartzchilde sphere may never be observed, you have, in effect, created an aether using wavefunctions, that is space-time compatible. I know you don't like to look at it that way. However, I find that to be very beautiful. It has been something I've been looking for. Thank you.

report post as inappropriate

Ray Munroe wrote on Nov. 25, 2009 @ 13:47 GMT
Dear Lawrence,

You said "Yet these are SU(n) gauged particles (n = 3) and this seems to reflect a possible connection between gravitation and QCD or conformal QCD-like physics."

I agree that these tachyons have a foundation in the behavior of quantum gravity. I have all four "colors": red, green, blue and white (plus anti-colors) which mimics the quantum numbers of quarks and leptons - with different electric charges and improperly defined intrinsic spin.

I know you are looking for a triality symmetry for your E8's. I don't think this is it. I think your E8's are more closely involved with gravity and/ or supersymmetry.

Dear Jason,

In my models, hyperspace behaves like a crystalline "Solid State" structure. Does this imply an aether? I never thought about it that way...

Have Fun!

Ray Munroe

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Nov. 25, 2009 @ 18:34 GMT
Four colors would imply an SU(4) group, or extended QCD. Quarks and gluons come from the fundamental 3 representation and the adjoint 8 representation of SU(3). I was thinking primarily of SU(3), which is the maximal subgroup of G_2 and decomposes as SU(3) + 3 + bar-3. I suppose one could consider this with SU(4) for the 4-irrep for quarks and an adjoint 15 for the gluon (like) fields

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

Ray Munroe wrote on Nov. 25, 2009 @ 19:27 GMT
Dear Lawrence,

I'm sorry - I don't mean to confuse the issue. "Color" is a phenomenon based on the rank-2 groups: SU(3) and G2. "Hypercolor" is the 2-dimensional triangular lattice defined by these gluons, quarks and SUSY partners.

If you study my Georgi-Glashow SU(5)/ Tertrahedral Conjugacy symmetries, you realize that the X and Y bosons of Georgi-Glashow can be represented by three dimensional vectors that connect the 4 points of a tetrahedron, where one traingular face of the tetrahedron is the SU(3) (red, green, blue) triangular lattice mentioned above. I call the 4th point in the tetrahedron "white". Pati-Salam Weak uses a new color "violet". I'm not certain which designation is more appropriate. This four-fold color symmetry is only valid at high enough energies (low enough X and Y masses). Please see Table 10 of the "A Case Study" paper for more details.

Have Fun!

Ray Munroe

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Nov. 25, 2009 @ 20:45 GMT
That makes a bit more sense. You can read the first part of my essay paper and read the argument about the transition from closed to open strings. In there I argue for there being tachyon condensates, which as you indicate are chromo-tachyons. If so then maybe a simple demonstration of G_2 physics can be made with the aut(O) and F_4. Then the M2-brane is a sort of dual system to quark-gluon plasmas. It sounds as if a paper could be written up on this which is sufficiently focued on this physics. It could be done probably in a month's time.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe wrote on Nov. 25, 2009 @ 22:18 GMT
Neutrinos, among other things, allow a neutron to assemble from a proton & electron. Protons and neutrons have charges and are capable of engaging the

V(r) term of the Schrodinger equation; neutrinos cannot. Photons have built in eletromagnetic fields which allow them to become solutions to the Schrodinger equation, neutrinos do not; are neutrinos fundamentally incompatible with the Schrodinger equation? Yet they have spin. If they have spin of 1/2, thus they are fermions. If they have spin, they have to be electromagnetically interactive. There can't be solutions to the Schrodinger equation. What QM equation are they solutions to?

report post as inappropriate

Ray Munroe wrote on Nov. 25, 2009 @ 22:39 GMT
Dear Jason,

Neutrons and neutrinos are both electrically neutral. A neutron is composed of two down quarks (charge -e/3) and one up quark (charge 2e/3), so a small variable dipole-like electromagnetic field might exist in principle.

The neutrino is color neutral (net color "white") and electrically neutral (net charge 0e), but does react via the Weak nuclear force (its how we can detect them at all) and probably via Gravity (which might allow neutrino oscillation from muon neutrinos into electron neutrinos and vice versa, although there may be a question about magnetic interactions).

If right-handed neutrinos exist (as neutrino oscillations and a non-zero neutrino mass might imply), then we can use Dirac's equation to describe neutrinos. If neutrinos are strictly left-handed, then we can use the simpler Majorana equation.

Have a Happy Thanksgiving Day!

Ray

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe wrote on Nov. 25, 2009 @ 23:14 GMT
Dear Ray,

Thank you. I'm looking at this stuff right now. Neutrinos lead to the Majorana equation, which leads to spinors, which leads to Clifford Algebra. I remember Lawrence mentioning Clifford algebra.

Everyone,

Have a joyous and Happy Thanksgiving!

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Nov. 26, 2009 @ 00:46 GMT
Yep, Happy T-day. Ray, I think this issue of chromo-tachyons in the case of a condensate on an M2-brane this is dual to a QCD quark-gluon plasma. This might be a route to extra large dimensions and the production of "soft black holes" at high energy. Signatures of this have been reported by the RHIC.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

Ray Munroe wrote on Nov. 26, 2009 @ 01:11 GMT
Dear Jason,

I think Clifford algebras are relevant. Even though Cl(8) seems huge, it does have some symmetries that should be interesting to M-theory.

Dear Lawrence,

Interesting idea. I originally thought of them as quark-like chromo-tachyons, but they might be lattice defects in Spacetime that are dual to Spacetime. These tachyons are weird because they aren't properly defined in 4-D Spacetime.

Chez Ray is in the kitchen!

Have Fun!

Ray

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Nov. 26, 2009 @ 01:25 GMT
Yeah, think about it. Are soft black holes and extra dimensions a manifestation of a duality between chromo-tachyons on an M2-brane and QCD. This would then put symmetries on the black hole complementarity between outside and inside S-matrix configurations.

The LHC appears to be up and running with Tevatron energies by year's end. New physics is coming!

I am about to go shopping now, We have invited a couple of people, so we are going to do an impromptu menu tonight.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe wrote on Nov. 26, 2009 @ 01:35 GMT
I found an article that seems to explain what soft black holes are:

http://www.universetoday.com/2009/05/14/is-everything-ma
de-of-mini-black-holes/

Chromo-tachyons sound like particles that can bind with protons/neutrons. I'm tempted to assume that these are the particles necessary to generate an FTL field, a possible way to interact with a c'-brane. Can they be used that way?

report post as inappropriate

Ray Munroe wrote on Nov. 26, 2009 @ 01:36 GMT
I hope that the LHC finds a Higgs and quiets the nay-sayers, the new-mini-big-bang theorists and the non-causality theorists. At first, we might not be sure if we have found the SM Higgs or the lightest Higgs of MSSM. I would love to find the lightest Higgs of the MSSM because that would ensure another fruitful generation of Supercollider experiments.

Have Fun!

Ray

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe wrote on Nov. 26, 2009 @ 01:48 GMT
Dear Ray,

I've been interpreting mass as some kind of a "lag time" associated with the speed of light; as if the laws of motion are implemented with light somehow. To me, the speed of light is like a CPU processor speed, and the interacting particles are sort of like subroutines, the mass would be the number of clock cycles, all metaphorically speaking. However, if they find any of the Higgs particle, doesn't that shoot down my "lag time" theory? If they find it, so be it. I'm just not sure if their Higgs field theory, and my "lag time" theory are mutually exclusive.

report post as inappropriate

Ray Munroe wrote on Nov. 26, 2009 @ 02:02 GMT
Dear Jason,

If they are "particles", we should be able to bind these chromo-tachyons to pions. But if they are lattice defects that are "dual" to Spacetime, they may behave like some strange soliton state.

I think mass and gravity originate in hyperspace and are weakly communicated to our Spacetime via geometry. This might explain: 1) why mass doesn't seem to be quantized (I think mass quantum numbers are quantized in hyperspace, but we see a distorted projection into Spacetime), 2) why Gravity is so weak (I think WIMP-Gravity is stronger on the WIMP-Gravity-brane but few of these field lines extend out into our Spacetime. Gravity is weak because it is spread out over 11 or 12 dimensions, whereas electromagnetism is only spread out over 4 dimensions).

I need to think on the meaning of "lag time".

Have Fun!

Ray

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe wrote on Nov. 26, 2009 @ 02:02 GMT
By "lag time", I don't mean time. In a scattering event, the laws of motion work as fast as they can, to exert all of the necessary forces to change the vectors of the particles. A more massive particle is an indication that their is more "to get done"; if the speed of light were faster, the change in direction could occur more easily. Does that sort of make sense?

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe wrote on Nov. 26, 2009 @ 02:10 GMT
Ray said, " think mass and gravity originate in hyperspace and are weakly communicated to our Spacetime via geometry."

I had considered the possibility that wave functions might be FTL in nature, but are required to slow down to the speed of light to properly interact with the laws of motion. I guess that's another way to say what you just said: project from hyperspace into space-time OR forced to slow down to properly interact with the laws of motion. Not a huge difference...

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Nov. 26, 2009 @ 04:19 GMT
The tachyon can't exist as a free particle, but must be confined in some ways. In a condensate the tachyon strings have open ends attached to a M2-brane and are then "confined." There is a QCD-like logic to this with confinement = no free quarks.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe wrote on Nov. 26, 2009 @ 08:14 GMT
In one of the earlier blogs, I said that I needed to generate a field/shell/bubble that would contain the spaceship inside of regular space-time, and allow thrust to be converted to a c'-brane. I needed to use some kind of material that has components of both regular space-time and also components of a c'-brane/hyperspace. It sounds like a chromo-tachyon would allow me to do this by creating protons/neutrons with tachyonic properties. I could have tachyonic-iron, for example. I don't need free quarks, I need a way to interface between space-time and hyperspace.

I'm a little concerned that they require an M2-brane which sounds an awful lot like an event horizon to a black hole. Do M2-branes ALWAYS accompany black holes?

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny wrote on Nov. 26, 2009 @ 12:15 GMT
Hi dear Friends ,

Happy to see this thread which continues .

Jason ,sorry I haven't seen your answer at this moment ,the 17 august .In all case it is cool your extrapolations .

Regards

Steve

report post as inappropriate

Ray Munroe wrote on Nov. 26, 2009 @ 17:26 GMT
Dear Jason,

These chromo-tachyons cannot have free quarks. They must be bound into colorless mesons or baryons. If we had a "pion" or "proton" or "iron nucleus" composed entirely of chromo-tachyons, it would immediately fly off to infinity or the nearest black hole (unless we could confine it electromagnetically or gravitationally). I was hoping we could manufacture tachyonic pions at a supercollider and slam them into tardonic pions and hope for a meson or baryon that had chromo-tachyons and regular quarks. This is pure speculation.

If Lawrence is correct about black holes converting closed strings into open strings and producing tachyons, then we may have to travel to a black hole to find our chromo-tachyons. This sounds similar to my ideas from last week when I said that there must be a serious "plug" that prevents Spacetime and Hyperspace from merging. One of these "plugs" could be a black hole singularity.

I baked four chocolate-rum-pecan pies last night, and I'm eating Thanksgiving dinner at my mom's with 28 other family members. Have Fun!

Ray

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Nov. 26, 2009 @ 18:21 GMT
The tachyons might be similar to quarks in a chromo-dynamic sense. They would also be confined in black holes, or the M2-brane as the quantized singularity of a BH. There is then some possible aspect of black hole complementarity here. The observer who measures a string falling to a black hole from a distance observes a different set of physics from the observer who falls in with the string. The string from the perspective of the distant observer will slow down and red shift is observable transverse modes, while the longitudinal modes grow so the string covers over the horizon. The string according to the infalling observer displays nothing usual in its dynamics until it approaches the singularity. There an string is observed to stretch and transform into an open string. The gravitons modes in the so(24) symmetry transform into tachyon modes, and these open string connect to an M2-brane.

These two views of the string are analgous to performing spin measurements with a Stern Gerlach apparatus along different directions. The S-matrix description of the string in the two configurations involves incommensurate observables that are not simultaneously diagonalizable.

The QCD-like nature of a colored tachyon may then be some duality to QCD. The possible observation of AdS-black hole like physics at the RHIC might then reflect how chromo-dynamics can exhibt this duality.

Happy T-day

LC

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe wrote on Nov. 26, 2009 @ 18:40 GMT
Dear Steve,

Did you want to know if I think that rotation causes gravity? I know about gravitons and I've heard about these mini-black holes. In truth, I'm not exactly sure why large accumulations of mass-energy would cause an attractive force that we call gravity. Rotation is a kind of angular-energy, and if large enough, would contribute to gravity; although realistically, I can't think of anything that could spin fast enough to generate a gravity field; anything spinning that fast would overcome F=mv^2/r and fly apart. If there is a connection between rotating spheres and mass, it escapes me.

Ray,

We're not having pecan pie; I am so jealous. Make sure you save room for turkey.

I was always taught that quarks come in groups of three (5), never ever by themselves. What I really wanted to do was mix in chromo-tachyons to create hybrid hadrons (mesons and baryons) that would not fly off to infinity. But there is a slight problem with our plan. I need a tachyonic lepton if I want to generate some kind of an interface field. Leptons (e.g. electrons) are used to generate electromagnetic fields complete with virtual photons. I would need a lepto-tachyon to generate FTL virtual photons. Didn't you mention something about that?

As for generating chromo-tachyons or lepto-tachyons, I am hoping we'll eventually be able find these occuring naturally. I hope we don't have to pull them out of black holes; I'm kind of hoping we'll find them in abundance in hyperspace. Perhaps initially, we'll need to use proton colliders to create them.

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe wrote on Nov. 26, 2009 @ 18:43 GMT
Lawrence,

What do we need to generate an M2 brane? Please don't say "a black hole".

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Nov. 26, 2009 @ 22:04 GMT
Well, the only way might be to generate a black hole! Now these quark-gluon plasmas at RHIC might have some black hole amplitudes, so there are maybe some small implitudes for M2-brane behavior. An analogue of an M2-brane can be found in systems such as graphene which has quantum Hall physics.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry wrote on Nov. 26, 2009 @ 22:21 GMT
Jason,

Sorry to intrude on your discussion but you said,

"If there is a connection between rotating spheres and mass, it escapes me."

Energy is change in spatial position within quaternion space, nothing else.It is change in position along the 4th spatio energetic...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Ray Munroe wrote on Nov. 27, 2009 @ 01:32 GMT
Dear Jason,

I also have lepto-tachyons, but those should immediately fly off to infinity or the nearest black hole - unless we can confine them with electromagnetic fields - I'm skeptical of this part because tachyons travel faster than photons, unless we can temporarily confine the tachyon with a large number of photons that the tachyon must bump into as it makes its escape.

Color theory works like this - we have three colors: red, green and blue; and their anti-colors: cyan, magenta and yellow. All "colorless" or "white" combinations of colors are stable. This includes baryons which are three quarks of different colors (red, green & blue) or different anti-colors (cyan, magenta & yellow) or mesons which are a quark and its anti-quark (red & cyan) or (green & magenta) or (blue & yellow).

If we had a normal pion made of a red up quark and a cyan anti-up quark, and slammed a tachyonic pion made of a red tachyon and a cyan anti-tachyon into it, we might be able to manufacture two hybrid pions made of 1) a red tachyon and a cyan anti-up quark, and 2) a red up quark and a cyan anti-tachyon. I still think our best bet is a black hole.

Yes - We had turkey and lots of side dishes and desserts.

Dear Steve and Georgina,

I don't think that rotation has much to do with Gravity. The graviton has intrinsic spin of 2, and a spinning black hole has a modified horizon (versus a non-rotating one) because centrifugal acceleration affects the net acceleration produced by the black hole. We don't understand all of the root causes of Gravity, but I think that confusing gravity and rotation is not a fruitful path.

Have Fun!

Ray Munroe

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry wrote on Nov. 27, 2009 @ 01:53 GMT
Ray,

You said "I think that confusing gravity and rotation is not a fruitful path."

and I agree with that. I am not confusing them. Propulsion based on the manipulation of tachyons or generation of "black holes" doesn't sound likely to be very fruitful either. Though the various desserts may have been.

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe wrote on Nov. 27, 2009 @ 08:31 GMT
Dear Georgina,

Please forgive me. Just to visualize a single quaternion dimension requires many hours of prayer and meditation. To be able to visualize and understand what you are describing, I would have to call upon powerful arcane forces. Most likely, I would have to sacrifice a goat in a ritual to summon the cthulhu gods from the deep. Then, I would have to command dark and dangerous powers to reveal quaternion realities to my consciousness. If I do not go insane, and if my magical defenses are not defeated whereupon I would be dragged into the darkness to be devoured by ancient demoniac lifeforms, then perhaps I would be allowed to experience and understand quaternion 4th dimensional hyperrealities.

Dear Ray,

There are some issues with the hyperdrive I have to work out. Unfortunately, I have to run off to meet my girlfriend for Black Friday shopping. I hate shopping.

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry wrote on Nov. 27, 2009 @ 10:24 GMT
Jason,

That won't be necessary. Just accepting the unreality of time is the first step, which I think you have already tentatively taken.

report post as inappropriate

Ray Munroe wrote on Nov. 27, 2009 @ 15:15 GMT
Dear Georgina,

I guess I misunderstood you about gravity and rotations. I think I understood Steve properly though. I don't understand the reality or unreality of time. Relativity implies that space and time are inter-woven, so changing the concept of time will also change Relativity. My 12 dimensional model might even have imaginary time. Jason and I are throwing around 'crazy' ideas to make sure that we haven't overlooked any FTL ideas.

Dear Jason,

Because of my retail background, I don't even like shopping or 'Black Friday'. I have treated this entire month like 'Black November' - it has been better than October was. My wife and daughter usually spend every Black Friday buying new Christmas ornaments at the local Art Gallery.

Have Fun!

Ray

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Nov. 27, 2009 @ 15:22 GMT
Rotation is related to gravity through the equivalence principle. The pseudo-force or centrifugal force is equivalent to nongeodesic motion in a gravity field. Combining the two is complicated. Orbital motion by Newtonian mechanics equates the centripetal force with gravity. For a relativistic case the centripetal force becomes complicated, and in face is reduced as one approaches r = 3m. At r = 3m the centripetal force disappears, and this is the photon sphere. This is a radius at which a photon can exist in an orbit around the BH. For r < 3m, but greater than 2m the centripetal force is no longer inwards but out. This means that in order to maintain a circular orbit in this region some additional force is required. There are no stable orbits in this region, and if you have rocket power you had better turn it on. Of course beneath r = 2m you are sunk.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Nov. 27, 2009 @ 17:16 GMT
The business of time not existing is a bit strange. If we go back to Newton's second law you have F = ma telling us that a dynamical quantity (force) equals a kinematic quantity (mass) times a geometric one (acceleration). The equation is then a bit odd, for the two sides of the equation involve quantities which are not existentially or ontologically equivalent. Physics has been stuck with this issue ever since. So what do we do? We stick with it, and the acceleration d^2r/dt^2 is a second order ratio of geometric quantities, length and time. We can measure these with rods and clocks. We don't however hold a clock interval in the same way we can hold a rod which codifies a length. So time seems a bit stranger still. Yet we have velocity, and in particular the speed of light which permits us to convert between length and time intervals. This also provides a symmetry principle which transforms between length and time depending on transformation between frames.

The ADM approach to general relativity slices spacetime into space plus time, and spacetime is foliated by spatial surfaces. The Lagrangian is NH = 0, for H dependent on extrinsic curvature terms on the spatial surface. The quantum version of this is similar to a Schrodinger equation without the time derivative. This is a part of the motivation by Barbour to say that time does not exist. Yet this apparent lack of time is due to the inability to equate diffeomorphisms of spatial surfaces with a time in a consistent way. Hawking’s sum over geometries or spacetimes involves these notions, but many mathematicians have difficulty seeing this as firmly established.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry wrote on Nov. 27, 2009 @ 21:37 GMT
Lawrence,

You said "The business of time not existing is a bit strange." Possibly true but that depends on how you choose to think about it.

I think...

Force is the capacity to do work, that is change position of matter or particle within space. Inertial mass is the result of the bodies current trajectory through (quaternion 4D) space. Acceleration is the change in that trajectory.

Why is it multiplied? The change is not just change in 3D vector trajectory that can be added or subtracted from current vector motion but incorporates change in the relationship of 3D motion to (spatio-energetic) 4th dimensional change in position.

I sometimes try to use the concept of nested spherical spacial surfaces or planes. Though I actually think the space is continuous just as it is within 3D space and not physically divided up. The different surfaces just representing different energy levels, not different times. It is the energy difference that makes these other spatial planes inaccessible not any problems of time paradox or causality. The 4th dimension is then just the dimension in which the stacking exists. It is not within 3D space because that (3D space) is just one of the stacked surfaces.

I took a quick glance at ADM on Wikipedia. You are a veritable mine of information!

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Nov. 27, 2009 @ 23:18 GMT
I don't think physics is in the business of telling us whether something like time exists. Time is BTW analogous to the electric field in electromagnetism. Similarly with fields in general we don't directly measure them, but infer them through how we measure the motion of particles. Fields as well as space and time are geometric elements we think according to. A good working model involving time and space, such as relativity, does give us a sense that what we are working with are not figments of our imagination. In a sense we can say they are real enough, even if we can't directly measure them, but only infer them through comparisons with rods and clocks. In a sense that approach works well enough.

Force is a dynamical quantity, and it is related to energy through the work theorem W = ∫F*dx. These are more dynamical, though curiously we measure the influence of a force geometrically. The weight of a body is found by how it distends a spring, so that length of distention is a measure of weight = force = mg. There are similar funny aspects to physics, and physics will probably never be as purely self consistent as mathematics. After all mathematics involves relationships between abstract objects, while physics does tell us something about how the world will behave if we tweak it in some way.

I gave thought to the idea of time not existing, or that it is an emergent property on a large scale. The problem is that for this to be the case we also have to say the same thing about space. It makes no sense to me to say time has no existential aspect to it while space does. I also think that the ideology of time not existing is a sort of interpretation of physics, juxtaposed with other interpretations such as block time. Relativity, quantum theory and statistical mechanics have various interpretations. Yet none of these rises to the level of being a real theory which tells us something definitive about the world. As theories they are really ineffective. So I can’t seriously entertain notions of time not existing, just as I think block time is a sort of interpretation which should not be upheld as a theory which can be supported by empirical evidence.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe wrote on Nov. 28, 2009 @ 01:42 GMT
It's hard to imagine that time does not exist because I also seem to be bound by it. I can never accomplish everything that I need to as fast as I'd like to. I spend many hours at a job, thank goodness, and then many hours doing other things that I wish I didn't have to do.

As for rods and clocks, what happens if we measure everything with lasers and points light sources? We can always calculate red shift/blue shift to determine velocities; we can always calculate light intensity to determine distance. For more exotic physics such as black holes, gravity, FTL events, I trust lasers and light sources more than I trust rulers and clocks. Since I know I can always modulate lasers and light sources, I know I can discover overlooked areas of physics by asking what happens to the information content of a modulated stream (a song, a video, etc..). For example, I can have a buoy or satellite in a decaying orbit around a black hole. Let's say it has equipment that can receive RF signals I send it, record them, then transmit them back to me at some safe distance. In whatever way I transmit my favorite song to the bouoy/satellite, I suspect the frequencies will be shifted as the RF waves arrive at the buouy which is deep in the gravity well; that will probably distort the signal causing information loss. When the song I transmitted is transmitted from the buouy, there will be more frequency shifting, which will distort the signal even more. Does this constitute loss of information content? Probably not. But it's worth considering.

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry wrote on Nov. 28, 2009 @ 03:14 GMT
Lawrence,

I agree that relativity is a good working model. However it does also leave a lot of foundational questions unanswered. So I will say that whether it is good enough depends on whether you are satisfied with leaving those questions unanswered or not. Accepting that the universe works according to God's will works well enough, if you are fully satisfied with that explanation.

We can observe the amount space that an object occupies, that is its volume. Therefore it is scientific to use the concept of space in a model. Everything that we think of as time passing is the change in position of matter in space. The moving of the celestial bodies, growth and ageing of living organisms, the moving of the hands on the clock and the swinging of the pendulum. It is all spatial change experienced as time. Changes in spatial position are energy changes and vice versa. These can be interpreted as time passing but time has no independent existence outside of that. There is no need for time in the model. Space and change in position, which is an energy change, is all that is required. Though to correspond with relativity and explain gravity it is necessary to have a 4th dimension. Which is not time itself.

Time as currently used is more than just a geometric element. It is a muddle of a number of different mental concepts. That is why it leads to strange, paradoxical, nonsensical, and to me wholly unacceptable, interpretations. These interpretations amount to fantasy not science. The arrow of time, causality and non reversal of time can all be accounted for by 4th dimensional change in spatial position, which is a continuous energy change. In the context of this explanation I do not think it strange that force can be measured geometrically. The meaning of dynamic is altered together with the alteration in perception of time.

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Nov. 28, 2009 @ 13:30 GMT
Newton's first law tells us that a body in free space and not subjected to a force remains in a constant state of motion. This tells us a couple of things. The first is that inertial frames are the optimal choice for observing physics. If you are on an accelerated frame you will not observe the mass to remain on a constant state of motion, or moving along a line. The other is that since the momentum (p = mv) is constant and F = 0 then the energy change or work done on the system is zero E = ∫F*dx = 0. So energy change is not necessarily germane to the issue of motion. The body at a constant velocity does have a constant energy E = 1/2mv^2, dE = mvdv, and for constant velocity dv = 0 and dx = vdt.

Energy and time are related to each other as conjugate variables, just as momentum and position. In the latter case this is known with the Hamiltonian formalism of classical mechanics. It also applies for both these cases with wave mechanics and Fourier transforms.

Time is something which is built all around us. Even the structure of language is very much built around time, present, past, future, plus perfect and so forth. Time is an odd quantity for we can’t hold it in our hands as such. Yet we can demark it with clocks and organize activity according to time. As such time is at least “real enough.”

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

Anonymous wrote on Nov. 28, 2009 @ 21:22 GMT
Lawrence,

you said "So energy change is not necessarily germane to the issue of motion." I do not agree with that statement. Energy change is completely tied into motion. Motion requires a change in spatial position. Every change in spatial position is an energy change. As motion is occurring within 3D space and occurs "over time", there is both 3D and 4th dimensional component to that motion. Everything is in continuous motion. Even a body "at rest" has energy because of changing quaternion spatial position. Even when there appears to be no net energy change there is still energy change along the 4th dimension which is a continuous loss of potential.(That is the energy input that drives the increasing development of the universe.)

Energy is nothing but changing quaternion spatial position.It is the "how much" measurement of that quaternion spatial change.

Time has been built into mathematics. That is not a problem so long as there is acknowledgement of what that time component actually represents in objective physical rather than subjective(experiential)terms. The use of time is required because there can be no direct 4th dimensional measurement. So a continuous regular change observed in 3D space can be used to represent it. It is an approximation. There can be minuscule variation from that regular change which leads to observed time dilation. It can be hypothesised that when huge energetic events occur there can be correspondingly large variation from the expected regular change. So astronomical bodies may sometimes not be calculated to exist in the positions expected from steady evolution over time. It is the energy change that is significant though it is interpreted as a temporal effect or anomaly.

Social convention and linguistic traditions should not determine how science objectively models reality. If everyday language is inadequate then new terms and their definitions are required. Just as if current mathematics is inadequate then new mathematical forms are required. Everyday usage of the term time is a problem because it is not scientific usage but a muddle of different concepts explaining subjective experience and held as common knowledge. That gives rise to explanatory frameworks that are limited by this misconception.

report post as inappropriate

Georgina parry wrote on Nov. 28, 2009 @ 21:23 GMT
That last post was me.

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe wrote on Nov. 28, 2009 @ 23:24 GMT
Georgina,

If we drop "social convention and linquistic traditions", we hobble science in two ways. First, the public loses touch with the importance of physics, so they won't bother buying books or thinking about it. This has the effect of making it harder to ask politicians to vote for funding for important experiments. Second, it makes it that much harder for physicists to match up physics with "reality". There is already a problem with physicists not being able to comprehend the physics or relate it to common experience. That's why some people can't tell the difference between FTL and time travel. If you remove time completely from physics, it becomes nothing more than a meaningless Rubick's cube of pretty symbols. Another example of this is the "Holographic Universe". It sounds like such a cool and mysterious concept. It means that physical matter can be represented as information content on the surface area of a blackhole, hypothetical or real. Can anybody really tell me what "information content" is?

Let's do a better job at tying physics to reality and everyday experience before we remove the very experiences, like time, that people understand.

report post as inappropriate

Georgina parry wrote on Nov. 29, 2009 @ 02:42 GMT
Jason,

People in general do not understand time. My experience tells me that -most- people don't think about -what- it is at all. I have previously given terms for the different concepts of time that are currently muddled together in common usage.

Science is not (and should not ever be) just about entertaining the public, selling books and journals and getting "political" approval and funding. Just because something is appreciated and "understood" by the masses does not mean that it is closer to the objective truth or more scientifically valid. All sciences have particular terms for specific meanings that can be translated into everyday language for wider comprehension. So that is not a problem.

I am not talking at all about removing experience of time or the use of time either in everyday life or within scientific investigation. Just using it in a way the recognises what time -represents- within physics rather than the current misconceptions.

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Nov. 29, 2009 @ 03:43 GMT
The matters I wrote about this morning with respect to energy and dynamics are pretty elementary aspects of physics. These concepts are generally taught in Freshman level courses in physics.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

Anonymous wrote on Nov. 29, 2009 @ 05:57 GMT
Lawrence,

report post as inappropriate

Georgina parry wrote on Nov. 29, 2009 @ 05:57 GMT
From me.

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Nov. 29, 2009 @ 13:55 GMT
The relationship between energy and momentum (or motion) are well understood. A particle moving in free space does not change its energy. For that matter the orbit of a particle in a gravity field does not change the total energy of a particle. These matter are in a way physics 101 type of problems.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry wrote on Nov. 29, 2009 @ 19:11 GMT
Lawrence,

with respect. Understanding that which is taught and considered basic is not necessarily the same as unconditionally accepting its validity.In order to answer the foundational questions some foundational changes must be made, however inconvenient.Just sliding the same old tiles around every which way will not solve the puzzle.

It is space and energy that are intimately and inextricably woven together not space and time. This can be represented by a quaternion arrangement of 4 spatio-energetic dimensions. Every change in spatial position is an energy change. There can be no change in spatial position without a change in energy because these are the same phenomenon.Just as when using space-time there can be not change in spatial position without a time interval in which that change occurred. That is why you said "A particle moving in free space does not change its energy".You are not taking into account energy change along the 4th dimension because you are substituting for it with time.

A gravitational field can be regarded as an increase in universal potential energy gradient which gives an aforeward ("forward" but not along a vector dimension) change in spatial position along the 4th dimension. Time dilation also occurs because time is being used for measurement. It is telling us that there is a change in the gradient of loss of energy. That it is not constant through out space but varies according to the distribution of mass. It is not telling us about the stretchiness of time.In my opinion.

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Nov. 30, 2009 @ 12:53 GMT
I can only advise that you take some time to learn basic physics. A body moving free of any force has a constant energy. I am not talking about quantum mechanics where there can be fluctuations in the motion of a particle around a straight line and associated quantum fluctuations in energy. In basic classical mechanics a bovy moving with v = constant has also constant energy.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe wrote on Nov. 30, 2009 @ 18:22 GMT
Lawrence,

I was watching some videos about dark matter and dark energy last night. They do a very good job at explaining what is happening. Dark energy is causing the expansion of the universe to accelerate. We've discussed all this stuff before, including the "expaning balloon" metaphor. Do you have any thoughts on dark energy?

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Nov. 30, 2009 @ 19:57 GMT
Dark energy is a constant Ricci curvature on a spacetime, which is associated with the cosmological constant. It is frequently interpreted as due to the vacuum energy and negative pressure from quantum fields. It then describes the constant stretching of spatial surfaces by sliding points on those surfaces apart. This can apply to a flat spatial surface as well, and for various reasons this is the optimal spacetime. The flat space or k = 0 model obeys holographic principles. This dark energy is also what drove the inflationary period of the universe, but where the inflationary parameter Λ was adjusted or renormalized to a smaller value with the end of inflation, and is now what we call the cosmological constant. If you look at my essay I sketch how this process is potentially due to a quantum phase transition associated with a quantum critical point. We are now in this latent phase with a form of what might be called eternal inflation.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe wrote on Nov. 30, 2009 @ 21:21 GMT
Ok, I understand that. So what do you think dark matter is?

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Nov. 30, 2009 @ 23:09 GMT
Based on current theories, or hypotheses which are not as yet well tested, dark matter is likely to be the supersymmetric partners of known elementary particles. The lowest mass particle is the neutralino. This is a condensate of the super partners of the photon, Higgs and Z particles. Data from Fermi and PAMELA indicates the production of gamma rays from near the galaxy center, where dark matter may be most present. This would then be potentially due to neutralino annihilations. The data suggests the source of these gamma rays may be particles in the ~ TeV range of mass-energy. If so these should then appear in the LHC as it ramps above the 10TeV beam energy.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe wrote on Dec. 1, 2009 @ 00:38 GMT
Dear Lawrence,

I wonder why these superpartners would be invisible? I would have guessed that dark matter, which has no electromagnetic interaction at all, would have to be completely chargeless as well as unmoved by electric/magnetic fields. As such, they shouldn't even have spin because spin makes them magnetically interactive.

report post as inappropriate

Ray Munroe wrote on Dec. 1, 2009 @ 00:50 GMT
Dear Jason,

The Lightest Supersymmetric Particle (LSP) is expected to be a Neutralino - a neutrally-charged mixed quantum state of the spin-1/2 photino, Zino and Higgsinos. Thus, we expect it to interact in Electro-Weak interactions. Perhaps its interaction is comparable to a neutrino - mostly neutral but it still counts as mass, momentum and energy. We expect conservation of 'R-Parity', and thus the LSP is expected to be stable (unless it annihilates with another supersymmetric particle).

Have Fun!

Ray Munroe

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe wrote on Dec. 1, 2009 @ 01:07 GMT
Hi Ray,

I'm confused by dark matter. If it were dust and debris, wouldn't it be so thick that it would cause orbits of planets around stars to decay? But then, wouldn't this dust radiate black body radiation? Is it possible that 26% of the total gravitational mass of the universe is just dirt/dust/debris and ordinary matter that just doesn't put out enough light for us to be able to distinguish it from the stars at the center of galaxies?

I guess my confusion is this: either dark matter is just too dim to be observeable, or else it really is electromagnetically invisible at all frequencies. If it's really invisible at all freqeuncies, then it has to carry zero charge and zero spin for that matter. Right?

But for that matter, a graviton has spin 2. Doesn't that mean that gravitational fields, if they really are implemented by gravitons, should emit light in the presense of a magnetic field?

Please let me know if I am running amuck.

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe wrote on Dec. 1, 2009 @ 01:19 GMT
I looked up spin in wikipedia. Spin just represents quantized angular momentum. I was incorrectly assuming it represented a magnetic dipole. Although, if spin does not ALWAYS represent a magnetic dipole, then how can spin be exchanged if there is no coupling? In other words, if a particle is created that has spin, but no charge, how can it ever introduce that spin into another reaction if there is no way to exchange the spin?

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Dec. 1, 2009 @ 02:07 GMT
A charged spinning particle has a magnetic dipole. There is a quantum result on something called the g-factor where g = 2.0. Quantum electrodynamics refines this prediction further due to something called a Lamb shift, so g = 2.002... or so.

The neutralino would appear to be a sort of massive neutrino. It is a condensate with the Z-particle, which is the electrically neutral but carries the equivalent of a charge for weak interactions. This is because the weak interaction is non abelian. The supersymmetric partner also carries the weak charge.

There should also be super partners to the gluon, or the QCD vector boson, called a gluino. So glue-balls of gluons in a colorless plasma should also have superpartners as well. These will be very massive and probably unstable.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry wrote on Dec. 1, 2009 @ 06:02 GMT
Lawrence,

I do not need to be reminded of basic physics. I am actually thinking about what the science means at a foundational level, rather than just mindlessly regurgitating dogma. There is a difference. Thank you for taking the time to talk with me. I consider our conversation at an end. Farewell.

report post as inappropriate

Ray Munroe wrote on Dec. 1, 2009 @ 13:56 GMT
@ Jason - "I'm confused by dark matter. If it were dust and debris, wouldn't it be so thick that it would cause orbits of planets around stars to decay? But then, wouldn't this dust radiate black body radiation?" Yes, if we pulverize normal 'baryonic' matter into dust, we still have atoms with electron orbitals. If you excite an electron with solar radiation, it will absorb and emit characteristic atomic spectra. And yes, any substantial 'unseen' mass within the planetary orbits can cause 'drag' that affects the planetary orbitals.

@ Jason - "Is it possible that 26% of the total gravitational mass of the universe is just dirt/dust/debris and ordinary matter that just doesn't put out enough light for us to be able to distinguish it from the stars at the center of galaxies?" Possible Dark Matter candidates are Brown Dwarfs (like Jupiter), the LSP (like a massive neutrino that interacts via the Weak and Gravitational forces), WIMP's (Weakly Interacting Massive Particles - recall I had a WIMP-Gravity), and MACHO's (Massive Compact Halo Objects). I would recommend that you read Gordon Kane's essay and PAMELA references. A few years ago, Prof. Kane hired an old friend (and grad school office mate) of mine, Mike Brhlik. Mike and my doctoral thesis advisor, Howard Baer, worked on the phenomenology of the LSP as Dark Matter. Quite frankly, until we understand Quantum Gravity and the Cosmological Constant, we may not 'know' as much about Dark Matter and Dark Energy as we think we know.

@ Jason - "I guess my confusion is this: either dark matter is just too dim to be observeable, or else it really is electromagnetically invisible at all frequencies. If it's really invisible at all freqeuncies, then it has to carry zero charge and zero spin for that matter. Right?" I might agree to electrically neutral - I'm not sure you can make the generalization of zero spin (Jupiter doesn't have zero spin).

@ Jason - "But for that matter, a graviton has spin 2. Doesn't that mean that gravitational fields, if they really are implemented by gravitons, should emit light in the presense of a magnetic field?" If you are obtaining this result based on Classical Electrodynamics, consider that we may need to apply both Quantum Gravity and Quantum Electrodynamics. I think Bryce DeWitt made the argument that a spinning electron should interact with the curvature of the Universe, and this might allow interactions between photons and gravitons. Also, my Grand Unified Mediating (GUM) Boson treats photons and gravitons as separate quantum states, so perhaps conversions of one propagating boson into another is possible.

@ Jason - "Please let me know if I am running amuck." We don't know enough yet. We might all be running amuck.

Have Fun!

Ray Munroe

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Dec. 1, 2009 @ 17:59 GMT
Dark matter can't be dust. The observation of planetary disks indicates this. They are far more luminous than compact bodies like planets. Dust scatters light very effectively, called Mie scattering.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

Jaosn Wolfe wrote on Dec. 1, 2009 @ 20:04 GMT
So it sounds like dark matter is not expected to be baryons or leptons; instead, it's expected to be super symmetry partners: WIMPs MACHOs, photinoes, etc. I'm not sure I believe that brown dwarfs can make up a significant amount of dark matter. The center of galaxies are very dense places. If there were brown dwarfs there, it wouldn't be long until they crashed into a star. or were ripped apart by gravitational "rip tides". They really wouldn't be able to maintain nice stable elliptical orbits for billions of years because there is so much to run into. They would either be absorbed into a star/blackhole, or in any event, they would be ripped apart into a gaseous cloud.

In the search for a theory of quantum gravity, perhaps we could also say that we are looking for a theory of quantum-space. When I contemplate this, I keep running into the question: what are forces? Then, I notice something funny:

Charges: opposites attract/like charges repel.

Mass/Gravity: like masses attract/opposites (if they exist), should repel.

Charges use quantum waves (photons) to achieve attraction/repulsion. However, mass/gravity uses curvature of space (time) to achieve attraction (repulsion). It looks like space itself and wave-functions should share some fundamental relationship, like lions and cats.

report post as inappropriate

Ray Munroe wrote on Dec. 1, 2009 @ 20:31 GMT
Dear Jason,

The centers of galaxies normally are very dense, and many could be black holes. Outside of these galactic centers, we often look for cold exotic matter (WIMP's/LSP) to explain the 'unseen' mass.

What are forces? What are dimensions? What is space? See - I can ask a lot of funny questions also. In my model, force charges relate to dimensions. We only see 3+1 dimensions because of spontaneous symmetry breaking and dimensional collapse. We cannot directly observe Quantum Gravity because of broken symmetries and dimensional collapse, thus Gravity is transmitted from Hyperpace (where it is strongest) to our Spacetime via broken geometry. I do wonder if there is a repulsive gravity. This might be possible for WIMP-Gravity. In some respects, anti-matter is most consistent if it has negative mass (and then we would use E^2=m^2c^4+p^2c^2, not E=mc^2), but I don't think gravitational repulsion has ever been observed. I don't think it is coincidence that we only have a reasonable understanding of four force charges: Strong g_3, Strong g_8, hypercharge, and weak isospin; and four dimensions. "For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known."

Have Fun!

Ray Munroe

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe wrote on Dec. 1, 2009 @ 21:51 GMT
Dear Ray,

I agree that gravity should be stronger in hyperspace. I'll give you my reasons if you give me yours. That might help explain more of the overall picture.

You said: "...I don't think gravitational repulsion has ever been observed. ". The universe is expanding because of dark energy. How is dark energy not equivalent to gravitational repulsion? Gravitational repulsion has been observed indirectly. It is true that anti-gravity has not been observed; is that what you meant?

You said: "What are forces? What are dimensions? What is space?" Those are the kinds of funny questions that we all need to be asking. You choose to work with higher dimensions and symmetry breaking. I think Michelson/Morley poisoned the whole idea that the laws of physics are implemented via some medium. So now, we have to use strange words like p-brane to talk about what we all suspect: that light is an oscillation in some kind of undulating medium. The laws of motion are subordinate to this motion; but the connectivity is accomplished by the absolute velocity of photon wavefunctions that create a space-time matrix; like a GPS system with 10^100 sattelites. I don't know what causes the photons to always travel at a velocity c, or what is ultimately causing them at all. But let's set that aside for the moment. We do know that whatever gravity is, it tugs and distorts this space-time 'matrix', and causes time to run slow in some places. My point is that we need to set aside our anxieties about aethers, and figure out the properties of "quantum-space". If you say that symmetry breaking is an obstacle to testing these other dimensions that make up "space", then I request: can you explain to me your understanding of what (spontaneous) symmetry breaking is?

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe wrote on Dec. 1, 2009 @ 22:24 GMT
I just looked up 'symmetry breaking' in Wikipedia.com. Originally, I thought it referred to the emergence of particles from a field. However, the definition I read talks about either (a) background noise, or (b) non-invariance of the system/background contributing to effect of creating fewer possible outcomes, in effect, determining the outcome or creating an "orderly" condition.

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

It's

report post as inappropriate

Ray Munroe wrote on Dec. 1, 2009 @ 22:47 GMT
Dear Jason,

Yes - Gravitational replulsion is the most common interpretation of an accelerating Universal expansion (Dark Energy). I wasn't thinking! I have my own 'crazy' ideas in Variable Coupling Theory (my book), but I need to consider 'Einstein's mistake' more seriously - Lawrence is pretty serious about it, and I should be.

I think symmetry-breaking is relevant. Certain SU(N) algebras have interesting properties and crystalline analogies, such as SU(5), SU(7) and SU(11). While in graduate school, about 15 years ago, I told many of my friends that I was working on a SUSY SU(11). I was playing with Quaternions and Octonions as well. I just never took it seriously that these higher-ranked algebras implied more dimensions. I think other important SU(N) algebras include SU(15), SU(19) and SU(29) (with minor interest in SU(9), SU(13) and SU(27)). If rank and dimension are equivalent, then the most interesting numbers of dimensions are: 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, 18, 26, 28, etc. We need to understand how these symmetries break (such as Higgs mechanism), and how these dimensions collapse (such as numbers of dimensions and geometries). Now we are full-circle back to the infamous aether - only we have 'unseen dimensions' rather than an 'unseen medium'.

Have Fun!

Ray Munroe

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Dec. 1, 2009 @ 22:49 GMT
If you have two masses m and -m (positive and negative) you have a curious situation. For the positive mass the Newton's second law gives

ma = -G(-m^2)/r^2,

so the positive mass is accelerated away from the negative mass by

a = Gm/r^2.

Now for the negative mass you have

-ma = -G(-m^2)/r^2,

and so the negative mass is accelerated towards the positive mass by

a = -Gm/r^2.

This is because the "charge" for gravity, which is mass, is also in the F(m) = ma. So the -m and +m will fly away with an acceleration and maintain a constant distance from each other. This sounds somewhat paradoxical, yet in a way since the total mass is m - m = 0 there is a net nothing accelerating away.

Anti-particles are negative mass-energy states E = -mc^2 that fill the Dirac sea. If you give a state in that "sea" 2mc^2 amounts of energy you create a positive mass anti-particle, with opposite quantum numbers such as charge. So it is not expected that anti-particles which are created in the lab have negative mass.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

Ray Munroe wrote on Dec. 1, 2009 @ 22:51 GMT
Hi Jason,

Check out Spontaneous Symmetry Breaking.

Ray

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe wrote on Dec. 2, 2009 @ 01:10 GMT
Can spontaneous symmetry breaking cause the system's entropy to go down?

report post as inappropriate

Ray Munroe wrote on Dec. 2, 2009 @ 01:55 GMT
I don't know of any way to make an enclosed system's entropy decrease. In the case of something like a Higgs mechanism breaking something like my Quantum Statistical Grand Unified Theory (in my book), we increase entropy by breaking the original Grand Unified Mediating (GUM) bosons into their various quantum states: gluons, photons, W's, Z's, gravitons, etc. - we have less order, less unity.

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe wrote on Dec. 2, 2009 @ 03:24 GMT
Dear Ray,

"Entropy" and "Information content" are two concepts that emerge over and over in physics, but are not well understood by me and probably many others.

Let's imagine that you and I are playing poker (or whatever your favorite card game is). Let's pretend that you win with a Royal Flush that beats my Full house. So we both throw down our cards. Then, the dealer scoops up all the cards before shuffling them.

From a black hole perspective, I believe that the total number of cards is the entropy that is associated with blachole surface area. The fact that the Royal Flush and Full house have becomes shuffled (loss of pattern) is irrelevant to physicists. A black hole just scoops up more stuff which gives it more possible arrangements (more cards). In other words, when a physicist says that information content is never lost, they mean that "cards" are never lost; however, patterns of cards are completey destroyed and irrecoverably lost forever. If a spaceship falls into a black hole, all of the possible vibrational modes are conserved, but the spaceship is completely destroyed.

This is important because we associate age/average failure rate/senility/disease/death as increases in entropy. The fact that systems fall apart is not an indication of increasing entropy. Yes, of course the pattern is getting wornout (randomized), but that has nothing to do with black hole entropy. Black hole entropy is proportional to surface area, which is determined by the mass of the black hole. In effect, black hole entropy is really just mass (surface area). For biological systems, improvement to the pattern can occur without any regard or consideration of "increasing entropy".

I think I might be confusing black hole entropy (= how many degrees of freedeom), with a disorderly pattern (not the pattern I wanted, but a poor variation of it). Can someone set me straight?

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Dec. 2, 2009 @ 03:50 GMT
Symmetry breaking does change the entropy of a system, but how? Entropy in standard thermodynamics is dQ = -SdT, for Q the thermal energy. So we write the SdT = d(ST) - TdS, and in this closed setting we then have dS = dQ/T. For dQ = cdT, where c is a heat capacity (at constant pressure) then

$\Delta S = c\int_T^{T$

So entropy increases with rising temperatures. Symmetry breaking is associated with the lowering of temperature of a system. In particle physics this is lower energy, or what might be thought according to the equipartition theorem E = kT The symmetry of magnetization domain direction in a paramagnetic system is broken as temperature is lowed past the Curie temperature. Another way of looking at this is the density of states defines a volume the system can occupy, call that W. The entropy of a system is then S = k*ln(W). Therefore, as the symmetry of the system is broken the W is reduced and so the entropy is reduced.

So what is going on here? We tend to think of the world as having an increase in entropy. The universe stared out with some very low entropy and that increased with time. After all the second law of thermodynamics is dS/dt >= 0. The above theory with entropy and the argument with symmetry breaking pertains to a system close to equilibrium which heat up their environment and have their temperatures lowered. So there is an environment to consider, and there is the fact this produces a statistical ensemble of possible symmetry breaking outcomes. In the ferromagnetization case there are many domains of magnetization in many directions produced by heating up the environment. Symmetry breaking for first order phase transitions also involves the generation of latent heat, which increases the entropy of the surrounding environment of the system who’s entropy is lowered.

It could also be seen that this is one reason for inflation. The relationship between the inflaton particle and the Higgs field is not completely clear. However, the breaking of a certain symmetry condition effectively dumps “heat” onto the environment. The temperature lowering of gauge fields is accompanied by the expansion of spacetime and the stretching out of the cosmological horizon. Here the temperature is lowered, but with spacetime the effective heat capacity is negative, so lower temperature means higher entropy. This is contrary to most systems in statistical thermodynamics. This is why large cold black holes have greater entropy than small quantum black holes with a hot black body temperature. So when it comes to the entire universe the breaking of symmetry is then involved with a net entropy increase for the universe as a whole.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Dec. 2, 2009 @ 03:53 GMT
The integral is supposed to be ∫dT/T = ln(T). I am not a fan of these HTML Tex emulators. In this case it worked fine in the preview, but crapped out on the real thing.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe wrote on Dec. 2, 2009 @ 05:39 GMT
So entropy really has nothing to do with biological systems/age or preservation of patterns then?

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Dec. 2, 2009 @ 13:15 GMT
I hoped I did not give that impression. A biological system is removed from equilibrium, and as such has lower entropy. The death of a biological system means it has approached equilibrium and information about that system is mixed into an ensemble or effectively erased.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe wrote on Dec. 3, 2009 @ 03:10 GMT
You didn't give that impression. I guess I need to really look at thermodynamics. So biological systems are considered to "not be in" equilibrium. On the surface, that seems reasonable. But then what is equilibrium versus non equilibrium? I guess equilibrium is when the energy for all degrees of freedom are averaged out?

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe wrote on Dec. 3, 2009 @ 05:40 GMT
Back to neutrinos. Can I assume that the LHC cannot detect them? Yet they will carry away some spin from the reaction. For that matter, can the LHC even detect spin in the absence of electric charge? I guess I should check their website. I am curious as to what the LHC can measure directly, and what they can surmise from indirect evidence. I'm also curious about the "weak force" charge.

report post as inappropriate

Ray Munroe wrote on Dec. 3, 2009 @ 13:18 GMT
Dear Jason,

You are partially correct. The LHC's detectors cannot detect weakly-interacting (via the Weak Nuclear force) particles. Its calorimeters can detect the directions of energy and momemtum deposits. This allows us to reconstruct vectors and determine a neutrino's signature based on missing momentum and missing energy (the missing mass of neutrinos is too negligible to measure accurately). In the case of Neutralinos, these are expected to be massive (~TeV), and its signature would consist of missing momentum, missing energy, AND missing mass.

The "weak force charge" is SU(2)_L weak isospin (which mixes with a U(1)_Y of hypercharge to create mixed quantum states of photons and Z's). I talked about it in my essay and my book. Just don't confuse it with my "Hyperflavor" which is an SO(4,2) left-right-handed symmetric extension of the Weak force.

Have Fun!

Ray Munroe

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe wrote on Dec. 3, 2009 @ 22:06 GMT
Dear Ray,

So if the LHC has a missing momentum/enerrgy, from the calorimeter readings, equivalent to a neutralino, for a reaction that hypothetically might yield a neutralino, they will announce the detection of a neutralino? I guess we should be happy that this is even possible. So how does this influence the prospects for detecting the existence of other dimensions? ...or for that matter, FTL particles?

By the way, I was wondering if you know anybody at NASA/other places, who is working on FTL propulsion and/or exotic propulsion physics? I really need to share my ideas with people who have a similar interest. Eventually, we are going to need some kind of lepto-tachyon, chromotachyon, and the like. This buisiness of tachyons flying off to infinity, or time traveling, is just not an idea I can support. I believe that tachyons have to be some kind of interface between this space-time and a second space-time with a c' > c. I'm looking for people I can blog with who think this idea has merit.

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Dec. 3, 2009 @ 22:16 GMT
Neutrinos were first suspected in beta decay because the positron and proton in the decay of a neutron would fly off in directions not opposite to each other. So a missing momentum is a clue to neutrino production. Later the spontaneous creation of pions and leptons from "nowhere," but near a scattering event indicated the presence of the neutrino. Neutrinos only interact by the weak interaction, and so have a small cross section for interaction. They are notoriously hard to "catch."

Neutralinos will appear as something simialr, but with a hefty mass. Then neutralino is also self annihilating, or Majorana, which means their presence will often appear in the production of photons or Z particles.

Cheers, LC

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

Ray Munroe wrote on Dec. 3, 2009 @ 22:49 GMT
Dear Jason,

We rely heavily on Monte Carlo event simulators to interrelate experiment and theory. The amount of missing mass will allow them to 'measure' the masses of Neutralinos (if they are produced and observed indirectly).

If the theorists don't build extra dimensions into their models and simulations then they won't even know what to look for, or that they've found evidence for higher dimensions. Realistically, I don't expect to find any direct evidence for higher dimensions at LHC - discovery of SUSY might imply extra dimensions. At NASA, I knew a Larry Smalley (Prof. Emeritus at the University of Alabama in Huntsville) who was interested in using String Theory to find higher-dimensional shortcuts from one point to another. I haven't corresponded with him in a couple of years - he may be in bad health.

Have Fun!

Ray Munroe

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe wrote on Dec. 4, 2009 @ 01:10 GMT
Dear Lawrence,

That's very interesting that the proton/electron fly off in different but not opposite directions. I've heard the small cross section interpretation used to explain the lack of detection of gravitons. Cross section is necessary to set up the quantum mechanic scattering problem. But I wonder if it's really a lack of coupling between neutrinos/Higgs/gravitons/etc.

Dear Ray,

Can extra dimensions also be interpreted as zero coupling between particles? I can't visualize 11 dimensions. But I can imagine two or more space-times overlapping where the particles in each do not couple or interact with the particles in the other.

report post as inappropriate

Ray Munroe wrote on Dec. 4, 2009 @ 02:15 GMT
Dear Jason,

Yes - Interaction cross sections are very small for particles that only interact weakly or gravitationally. The LHC is not designed to directly detect neutrinos or gravitons. Super Kamiokande is a good example of a neutrino detector.

I suspect that some forces (such as Hyperflavor and WIMP-Gravity) are very weak because most of their field lines are contained by their respective branes. If Gravity is spread out over 11 dimensions, and electromagnetism is spread out over 4 dimensions, it might help explain why Gravity is so much weaker (field lines spread out over more dimensions).

The coupling between Spacetime and Hyperspace must be very weak (of order G or the inverse of Dirac's Large Number), and thus it should be nearly impossible to discover Hyperspace at the LHC. I still think we need a black hole, but that is Lawrence's specialty.

Have Fun!

Ray Munroe

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe wrote on Dec. 4, 2009 @ 03:28 GMT
Dear Ray,

This is still a hard nut to crack. Specifically, how does one couple between our space-time and a faster space-time or hyperspace? I thought about why the speed of light is its value and not some other value. Why can't c be larger? Since c^2 = 1/(permeability * permitivity), one reason that c can't be faster is because it has to create ripples of both electric fields and magnetic fields. If it didn't have to generate electric and magnetic fields, then it could go faster.

By the way, I've heard many times that gravity is weak because it has to spread out over additional dimensions. Since F=ma, then mass directly ties into acceleration (motion). When gravity exerts itself, we say that space or space-time is curved. But when two charges exert a force on each other, we talk about wave function for the potential energy V(r), for a charge. Without using relativity, can we set up a wavefunction for a gravitational potential?

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe wrote on Dec. 4, 2009 @ 17:31 GMT
Particularly, I was curious if anyone had tried to solve Schrodinger's equation for a gravity wave using a gravity potential for the potential energy.

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Dec. 4, 2009 @ 18:28 GMT
You are effectively askiing whether or not gravity is quanitzed. As yet that has not been done. General relativity up to second order in the post Newtonian expansion appears similar to Maxwell's electrodynamics. That can be quantized in much the same way electrodynamics is. This is a sort of linearized gravity which can be quantized as with any other field theory. The metric is treated as a flat metric with a perturbing metric

$g_{\mu\nu} = \eta_{mu\nu} + h_{\mu\nu}$

and wave equations readily derived. This is how weak gravity waves are modelled. The wave equation is of the form

[equation]\box{\tilde h}_{\mu\nu}={G\over{c^4}}T_{\mu\nu},

[/equation

for the box = d'Alembertian and

${\tilde h}_{\mu\nu}=h_{\mu\nu}+\eta_{\mu\nu}{h^\alpha}_\alpha.$

This linear wave equation can be quantized.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Dec. 4, 2009 @ 18:30 GMT
The last equation is supposed to appear as

[equation

{\tilde h}_{\mu\nu}=h_{\mu\nu}+\eta_{\mu\nu}{h^\alpha}_\alpha.[/equa
tion]

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

Anonymous wrote on Dec. 4, 2009 @ 18:31 GMT
One more try, if it does not show up right I give up

[equation]{\tilde h}_{\mu\nu}=h_{\mu\nu}+\eta_{\mu\nu}{h^\alpha}_\alpha.

[\equa
tion]

Grrr... LC

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe wrote on Dec. 4, 2009 @ 22:27 GMT
So the perturbing metric is proportional to the stress-energy tensor (times G/c^4). I figured the Einstein equations would pop back in my lap. But I think I can answer my real question. I do wonder if this perturbing metric, or for matter the Ricci tensor, if either of them have the effect of changing the distance between two points in euclidean space. Perhaps it's not the distance between them that changes, but rather, the potential energy. Is it reasonable to infer that any particle, wave or field that can be compelled to acclerate by gravity, where gravity is just the curvature of space, then these particles, waves and fields must be constituents of space itself? Can we infer that gravity is nothing more than space that has some scalar potential energy?

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Dec. 5, 2009 @ 00:57 GMT
The box symbol is the d'Alembertian

$\box={{\partial^2}\over{\partial x^2}}+{{\partial^2}\over{\partial y^2}}+{{\partial^2}\over{\partial z^2}}-{1\over{c^2}}{{\partial^2}\over{\partial t^2}}.$

The * thing in the box should not be there. This is for the momentum-energy tensor T_{ij} = 0 is an elementary wave equation. The solution to this wave equation has elementary Fourier expansions, which are easily converted to quantum wave solutions. The wave equation is similar to that for photons, but where there are two directions of polarization. In quantum optics there are di-photon systems similar to this, and these are a sort of analogue of gravitons.

BTW, in Tiger Wood's SUV he crashed last week was a popular book on physics by Gribbon, "Getting a Grip on Physics." So lots of people are pondering physics.

Cheers LC

attachments: TigerWoodsscarwithGet002.jpg

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe wrote on Dec. 5, 2009 @ 02:50 GMT
I've seen the d'Alembertian before. That would take the place of the Laplace operator in the Schrodinger equation. But the potential energy term would still be charge, right? Has anyone been able to get a solution to the perturbing metric? Does that solution include a Planck constant?

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Dec. 5, 2009 @ 03:04 GMT
The quantum version would be a form of the Klein-Gordon equation. The potential you are thinking of is really pertainant to the Schrodinger equation in non-relativitic QM. Here the perturbing portion of the metric defines something analogous to the vector potential in electrodynamics.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe wrote on Dec. 5, 2009 @ 18:19 GMT
Do you know anything about the Casmimir effect? Particularly that the two plates that are close together have the effect of limiting what waves can exist between the two plates. I've heard that this can have the effect of allowing the speed of light to be a little bit larger than usual. Have you heard anything about this?

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Dec. 6, 2009 @ 01:57 GMT
Of course know about the Casimir effect. It is really like strings on a guitar, which from fret to nut hold a discrete number of wavelengths. The same holds for virtual photons inside the cavity. Yet outside the cavity there is a continuum of frequencies. Hence the vacuum energy in and out of the confined region are different. This results in the measured pressure on the walls of the cavity, or parallel plates.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

James Putnam wrote on Dec. 6, 2009 @ 02:48 GMT
Dear Dr. Crowell,

Yes, but what about the speed of light being a little bit larger?

James

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Dec. 6, 2009 @ 03:16 GMT
One must remember there are the phase and group velocities of a wave. The phase velocity is that of the wave fronts, which is where information is communicate. The velocity is v_p = c/n for n the index of refraction. There is also the group velocity v_g = c/n_g, where n_g is the group index of refraction

n_g = n + ω(∂n/∂ω),

where there is a frequency dependency on the index of refraction. For ω(∂n/∂ω) < 0 the group velocity is faster than light. Yet no information is communicated here, for this velocity corresponds to the velocity of Fourier components of a wave, not the entire wave which communicates information. The term ω(∂n/∂ω) in the case of the Casimir effect is one where it is less than 0. This can be seen since n is for all Fourier modes of EM radiation and the dispersion term removes the contribution of frequencies on n in the trivial case n = n(ω) = constant. So the velocity which changes is the group velocity, not the phase velocity. As such there is no communication of information faster than light.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

James Putnam wrote on Dec. 6, 2009 @ 03:59 GMT
Dr. Crowell,

Thank you.

James

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny wrote on Dec. 6, 2009 @ 09:51 GMT
Hi all ,

Dear James ,

Never the light velocity will change its constant .It is like an axiom an universal gauge .Like a continuum of evolution .The sense of rotation seems very relevant about the synchronization of evolution .

The informations are intrinsics in the codes ,in the gravitational stable and evolutive system .I agree about the transfert thus ,some limits seem foundamentals thus .The phase of waves correlated with the superimposing of the rotations can be analyzed too with the fracal of spheres and thus the volumes thus the rot and synchronization of polarisations .

Dear Lawrence ,

What do you mean by refraction .Like n1sin i =n2sin r ? ....If the optic anlyze is inserted in the extrapolations ,thus how can we superimpose these systems with rationality ? That seems difficult about the real perception .

Happy to read tour details Lawrence ,it is always full of news .

Regards

Steve

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Dec. 6, 2009 @ 18:01 GMT
This is basic refraction, of which Snell's law is an example of. In general a media can have an index of refraction which depends on position in space and frequency of light. Chromatic aberrations are an example of a frequency dependency on the index. This occurs when a lens induces different paths fpr different colors of light.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

James Putnam wrote on Dec. 6, 2009 @ 21:24 GMT
Dear Steve,

Yes I know. I thought that the most important part of Jason's question was unanswered. Even after DR. Crowell's response, I feel that more could have been said about the form of any evidence for a possible increase in the speed of light. However, I did not feel like pressing the matter any further. Also, I think that the speed of light being a universal constant is open to question. I have tried to indicate this point of view in my two essay contest entries. Thank you for your message.

James

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe wrote on Dec. 7, 2009 @ 03:56 GMT
Dear James,

I think that the physics community has an air tight representation of the laws of physics. Whether or not it's complete in the exotic sense (FTL/many dimensions), I cannot say. I can certainly point out all of the possible hiding places. If a tree falls in hyperspace, but the physics community has no proof of hyperspace, did the tree really fall? It's not much of an argument, but I can't reveal FTL propulsion without evidence. I do know that photons are quantum wavefronts of undulating electric and magnetic fields; that's just the poyting vector. Are the Higgs field, permeability, and permittivity all manifestations of the space-time brane? If I propose a second space-time with a different speed of light, c'>c, different kind of charge, but I keep all of the geometry the same for simplicity, then perhaps I can propose a way to acheive FTL propulsion. But if I have no way to interface the two space-times, if the two space-times have nothing in common, then a second space-time is really unhelpful towards an FTL propulsion objective. They say that all things that have both mass/energy content as well as information content, all of those things are allowed to contribute to the force of gravity. In fact information content via entropy are the last outpose of this universe. If you leave this universe through a black hole, you must give up your energy content and your information before passing through the event horizon; beyond which there is either maximum packing of quantum matter, or there is a tumultous storm of extreme energy that buffets against the speed of light barrier. At the smallest scale, the quantum wave function appears; it is the other unknown. Particles can be in multiple eigenstates simultaneously; but the math doesn's tell us more than that. These are the two doorways into this physical universe. The quantum wave comes from the potential energy of the charge; the black hole comes from mass-energy density. The light spans both of these horizons, but cannot reveal what lies beyond in the darkness.

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny wrote on Dec. 7, 2009 @ 18:22 GMT
Hi all ,

Dear James ,You are welcome ,I understand .

I agree too about this constant and our limits .It is the reason why I like read the extrapolations of Jason and his super creativity .I think he is going to find many relevances in this road .The constant and our limits are bizares in an interactions optic with the universe and its bodies in rotation .Sure it exists some roads to check the space and thus the velocity and the movement .Perhaps we are youngs and thus it is ht reason why we can't travel behind our system .Perhaps it is well like that ,indeed the planets I think are not there to sell their elements .Perhaps the step by step is essential and that to respect this universe and thus utilise the discovery in a pragmatic road of harmony .

I am very intrigued about the check of this space and our dimensions so far of us .Sure it exists some roads of improvement of the motion .Sometimes I say me ,if the contraction is a reality thus a decrease of the space is logic and rational ,furthermore if all turns around the universal center thus even the topology must be adapted with the evolution since the begining of the big polarisation if I can say .

The astrobiology is an evidence and many biological systems are everywhere ,thus how can we arrive to interact ......the evolution seems the main part of the puzzle ,even the consciousness seems on this road .

Perhaps the velocity is the key ,perhaps the contraction and rotation,perhaps the evolution is the key ,perhaps the intrinsic codes of the elementaries particles,perhaps some doors where all is light thus the code is important to re polarise,perhaps it is the propulsion .....probably what the rotating encoded system is important ,thus what is the cause thus how can we teleport in a light continuum with a spherical system in a other place in this universal sphere .That becomes very complex the cause of the rotation thus the mass .If we want to re polarise or re create a mass thus we must check the cause of the rotations and its superimposings since the begining .That seems not possible at this moment this super motion .It is the same with the light ,a rotation exists too thus if we want to be in this continuum before the re creation ,we must check there the sense of rotation and its velocity ,which is peobably the maximum gauge furthermore .

In conclusion I beleive what the evolution and its conscioussnes correlated with the technology shall permit these motions in our limited system .

Thank you to you too .

Best Regards

Steve

report post as inappropriate

James Putnam wrote on Dec. 7, 2009 @ 18:46 GMT
Dear Jason,

"I think that the physics community has an air tight representation of the laws of physics."

I think that this could be said about experimental physics; however, for me, theoretical physics has made many educated guesses since the beginning of theory. These guesses cannot be shown to be correct. They are assumed to be correct. They take the form of imagined properties resulting from interpretations of unknown qualities that appear in the empirical form of the equations that model the patterns observed in empirical evidence.

We do not know the nature of cause. We can be certain only that there is a cause. We are not justified in accepting more than one cause. True unity requires that there be only one primary cause. All effects, including our intelligence and free will, must be the result of different aspects of this single cause. I think that the quote above is incorrect. I think that theoretical physics has created an illusory universe. Einstein pushed for support of his imaginary universe with words to the effect that: "We need a new way of thinking". His willingness to plunge us into accepting illusions has led to modern theoretical physics.

Misinterpretations starting with f=ma, grossly extended by Einstein, and carried on without restraint to this day have put us in a situtation where misinterpretation has introducted distortion into theory. The result of admitting multiple distortions is that solutions must contain multiple contortions. Several of the properties that you mention above are representative of contortions. We are are now required to reach outside of our understanding of this practical universe and imagine the existance of an impractical universe or universes.

It is probably not helpful for me to try to be specific in my objections. You are in good company with Drs. Munroe and Crowell. My opinions would not serve your purposes. I will carry on with my own work and encourage you to do the same. Thank you for your message.

James

report post as inappropriate

Ray Munroe wrote on Dec. 7, 2009 @ 19:21 GMT
Dear James,

I enjoy reading new approaches to old problems. It seems that good theories may get modified, but never get thrown out completely. Perhaps we should be careful about taking our theories so seriously that we integrate them too much into our philosophy and perceptions.

Jason has challenged me to think about ideas such as hyperdrive more than I would have on my own. I think that constants such as c and h must be Universal within our 3+1 brane of Spacetime. If two different branes had two different values of h and c and classical couplings of order 1, then they should merge and 'average out' the values of h and c.

This leads me to consider multiple possibilities: 1) if a hyperspace brane has a different value of c or h than spacetime, then it can only be connected via a quantum (not continuous) event, and 2) the coupling between our spacetime brane and any hyperspace branes must be very weak - of order G or 10-40 - or else we should have discovered these hyperspace branes.

My education has led to some biases, but I agree that some changes are required in Modern Physics.

Have Fun!

Ray Munroe

report post as inappropriate

James Putnam wrote on Dec. 8, 2009 @ 00:31 GMT
Dear Ray,

"It seems that good theories may get modified, but never get thrown out completely."

All good theories are interpretations placed upon the perceived qualities that appear in the empirical form of the equations that accurately model the patterns observed in empirical evidence. The interpretations may consist of real or unreal theoretical properties. The viewpoint of the theorist does not noticably harm the practical usefulness of the equations. When additionally discovered patterns in empirical evidence are observed to require the alteration of the equations, the old theory does not become irrelevant or wrong. It already was either right or wrong.

The potential problem for any new interpretations that are added onto the improved equations is that they are usually molded to successfully reduce, under the older restricted conditions, to the old theory. They are usually considered to represent improvements or extensions of the old theory. Therefore, the uncertainty of educated guesses or just plain wrong interpretations continue to force themselves onto the empirical equations and have a good chance of requiring the new additions to the theory to be distorted. The old theory becomes a special case of the new improved theory. Some error has been corrected, but there may be much more important errors that are retained.

The correctness of modern theoretical physics is very much dependent upon the correctness of older theory. I think it is important to recognize that the older theoretical interpretations of perceived properties have not been proven. I think it would be wise for modern theoretical physicists, with their vastly improved knowledge, to return to the fundamentals stripped bare of prior theoretical bias and make modern educated guesses. For me the key to correcting such theory is to include unity right from the beginning. For others there may be a different path. I do not think that we are currently on the correct path.

James

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Dec. 8, 2009 @ 00:41 GMT
The hyperdrive is the dream of science fiction. It stemmed early on in part from a cracker barrel idea of general relativity, time dilation, curved space and so forth, and a need on the part of writers and authors to avoid the difficulties of time and relativity. Yet the idea has always presented us with troubles, and these things connect up with time travel, which is even more difficult to uphold.

We humans are amazingly good at using up our environment. Any constraint upon us we eventually figure a way around, and we use more and more of the world. It may have started with Australopithecus when they took themselves off the menu (throwing rocks at that menacing leopard) and put more on their menu. We have consistently supercharged things, eventually with agriculture and much more recently with science and technology we can use things up at a breakneck speed. Take note of this the next time you throw out the garbage. The sense we have had is that the future will hold much more of what we have, remember the cartoon “The Jetsons?” The problem is that in the last few decades things have not exactly worked out that way. We don’t have the Clavius lunar colony seen in 2001 A Space Odyssey, we don’t drive flying saucers to work, we don’t have jetpacks and so forth. We are also facing a host of growing problems due to our exploitation of the world. Physics is pretty much giving us obstructions on futuristic ideas like warp drives, and astronauts on Mars is as far off in the future as it was in the 1970s. In fact it could be said that in recent time our world is largely about hi-tech farting around --- web game sites, nonsense blogs, web conspiracy threads etc. Oh, and yes, there are the wars. We might in the end be just played a grand Ponzi game, a pyramid scheme based on energy and resources, and we might be reaching the limits on that --- endgame.

So things have not worked out exactly right. Even if we do manage to get a reasonable theory of cosmology and quantum gravity, chances are we will at best get tangential evidence to support it. So as Sting of the rock band “The Police” put it make the best of what is still around. Maybe we are just a way the universe becomes aware of itself up to some limit and then goes back to sleep.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry wrote on Dec. 8, 2009 @ 00:50 GMT
Kiwi jetpack invention gets ready for domestic takeoff

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe wrote on Dec. 8, 2009 @ 01:11 GMT
Dear Lawrence,

We all share your concern that there are limited resources and unlimited wants. However, I don't that that waiting around for the extinction of mankind is such a great idea. One of the reasons why we over use resources is because we all worry about keeping our jobs, particularly in this economy. Another reason that people need stuff to make them feel better is because physics pretty much cut the connection between people, and the God(s) that they worship. What choice do we have but to seek some happiness in materialism?

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe wrote on Dec. 8, 2009 @ 03:26 GMT
Dear Ray,

Lawrence has raised concerns that we are too wasteful with our resources. Personally, I don't need a lot of gadgets to survive. But if everyone in the world suddenly turns away from buying stuff, what happens to the economy? It crashes, right? Lots of people out of work. I would like to find some reasoable compromise between the Global warming crowd whose data isn't working out for them, and the real environmental issues like pollution. I am not someone who thinks that the human race is some kind of virus; that is a popular idea that creates fertile breading grounds for hate groups. I'm also not one of these anti-religion intellectuals who eagerly and melevolently looks forward to the day when humanity will go extinct and cockroaches will take our place. In spite of whatever scientific and intellectual mumbo jumbo some intellectual can squack that relegates humanity and compassion to some equation or chemical reaction, I think that humanity is precious and worth looking out for. If I could renounce mathematics as a religion, I would. I hereby burn my membership card to the "Humans have no soul" club.

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Dec. 8, 2009 @ 03:59 GMT
I can't say the human species is going extinct in the very near future. E. O. Wilson talks about the bottleneck we all face. There is also the Jay Hanson site dieoff, which does tend towards misanthropy, but contains some interesting material. I think it very possible that our species will encounter yet another bottleneck here, not unlike previous ones and where the most recent which spawned our species. So with our engineered planetary mass extinction, and collapse or implosion of the human condition, there might for the next 100,000 years or more only be a few hundred thousand Homo sapiens in isolated population pockets around the planet. This might in fact be some crucible for future evolution of the hominid line we currently are on. On the other hand we might simply fade out into the dark.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe wrote on Dec. 8, 2009 @ 05:40 GMT
The real problem with predicting such events is that nobody knows. Creativity is what it is; thus, we fill in the blanks with our own personality, our personal experience. If there is a bottleneck, I anticipate that the ones who survive will have a superior creativity to our own; they will be able to endure their present conditions while they dream of a better world.

report post as inappropriate

Ray Munroe wrote on Dec. 8, 2009 @ 13:44 GMT
Dear Jason,

I can't speak for the entire world, but I think Americans are rather wasteful in general. It is true that if we slow down consumption, we will slow down our economy. But part of the problem with the economy is that many Americans overspent and overextended their debt in the early part of this decade. The government will never call this a 'Depression', but we may be in for a decade-long cycle with no economic growth. It might take two or three Presidential cycles and different Presidents to get us out of this mess. We could blaim it on the wars, but the reality is that Depressions happen every 50 years or so and we were due for one.

My family's retail store sells major appliances. More efficient washers (front-loaders and hybrid top-loaders) and refrigerators are very popular because our city has relatively high utility rates. Front-load washing machines use less electricity, less water, and less detergent than the average top-load washer, so consumers can continue to consume, but reduce their carbon footprint at the same time. Most people I know consider a washer and a refrigerator necessities, not luxuries.

We haven't fully tapped a variety of resources because they are more costly (solar and wind) or dirtier (coal and nuclear). As we consume our fossil fuels, we must make the tougher cost vs. benefit decisions of the other resources. I once studied Plasma Physics because I thought Nuclear Fusion was the future of our energy requirements: heavy hydrogen is abundant, and fusion is generally cleaner than fission. However, it is difficult to achieve, and became obvious that only the larger cities could afford the multi-billion dollar tokamaks. If we ever surpass the break-even point in fusion, then these larger cities could sell hydrogen gas to the smaller cities. We could have cars and smaller power plants that burn hydrogen and produce water steam. Yes - water is a greenhouse gas, but water is the cleanest waste I can think of.

Have Fun!

Ray

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny wrote on Dec. 8, 2009 @ 18:38 GMT
Hi all ,

Dear James ,

I agree totaly with you .It is what I said too on the blog of Mr Oldershaw,the old school is the base .The superimposings at this moment becomes confusing .

You speak about an important piece of the puzzle,the referential and its uniqueness ,its laws ,invariants and constants .The base is the base.Einstin was the chief of the distorsions of equations .Like an utilisation of our imagination with the infinity .That implies of course the confusion if the evolution is considered .The personality I think is unique and thus the creativity too ,but I beleive strongly what the referential is essential even with the imaginaries ,the sisters of the EPR and the others paradoxs .The balance between the rationality and the unlimited creativity thus is young ,that implies an understood confusion .The uniqueness of a system ,created thus will be always inside the specific system where the imaginaries and the rationality at the unification becomes pefecty synchronized ,of course at this step of perception and understanding ,even the difference between them doesn't exist at this scale of evolution and harmonisation .This line of reasoning implies thus possible synchronizations between all imaginaries extraplations if and only if the universal referential is taken in its specificity ,where the zero ,the - and the infinity are analyzed with pragmatism with the pure physicality .

The reasonability thus becomes the sister of all our imaginary extrapolations .

With this perception ,the illusion of course is not a reality .

I liked a lot your words dear James ,

" For me the key to correcting such theory is to include unity right from the beginning." the referential always and thus its limits .....

Best Regards

Steve

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe wrote on Dec. 8, 2009 @ 18:47 GMT
Dear Ray,

I keep hearing reports that CO2 levels rise after global temperatures rise, thus destroying the causal relationship between CO2 and global warming. I also keep hearing reports that we are in a global cooling period, not a global warming period. Furthermore, I am also hearing reports that climate change scientists are fudging their numbers because, like everyone else, they like getting paid, too.

My girlfriend keeps asking what I want for Christmas. I don't really need anything. Of course, I have lots of student loans and a car payment. I'm not a great aggregator of financial wealth. If we're in for a depression, then prosperity is just not in the cards.

The truth is that I'm not really interested in stuff; I like ideas and I am developing a fondness for human(e) topics, experiences, and things that require a soul. I'm not some souless hominid in a dying universe, waiting for the next iceage or Hitler to come along. Let's just face it; science has nothing to contribute to the important parts of life. First, the physics communty came for our religious convictons and they watered it down and undermined it. They murdered our God and told us we had no soul; that made it easier for the Nazis to kill millions. Or if you prefer someone more contemorary, a Sadam Hussein. He gave his two sons, republican guard and henchmen, a license to torture, rape and kill millions. After all, they were just hominids; they had no soul and no God; in fact, the universe is dying of heat death, so who really cares.

I'll describe my next attack on the speed of light when I'm not so pissed off.

report post as inappropriate

Ray Munroe wrote on Dec. 8, 2009 @ 19:32 GMT
Dear Jason,

Don't let situations you can't control rule your emotions. Just do your best and be your best.

"Finally, brethren, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is of good repute, if there is any excellence and if anything worthy of praise, dwell on these things."

My wife asks me what I want for Christmas. I usually say "Peace on Earth" knowing that she and I can't make that happen by ourselves (and withdrawl from a war that leaves socio-economic chaos behind is not true peace), and knowing that she'll probably get me more clothes instead.

Climate is a tricky subject. It requires decades - and maybe centuries - of data to understand. It seems that our average temperature has risen slightly in the past century. If we project this out exponentially with the economic expansion of our most populous regions (such as China and India), then this could be a bad omen. On the Gulf Coast, we worry about Hurricane seasons becoming worse with time due to warmer waters. Only time will tell... I just hope I don't have to move to the hills of northern Georgia to find beach-front property.

Have Fun!

Ray

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe wrote on Dec. 8, 2009 @ 20:50 GMT
Dear Ray,

It's not that I'm ruled by my emotions. I'm very tired of having to be a good little "scholar" who never gets mad or feels any passion. If I don't throw a fit now and again, it's like my emotions are dead. I don't want to be a "Vulcan", all logic and no passion. I want my passions to enrich people's lives; to inspire others to dig deep into their feelings. All this thermodynamics business is about systems in equilibrium, dead things. Biology and emotions could be a sign that nature doesn't like equilibrium. Maybe the laws of physics and/or the physics constants can be seen as equilibriums. In other words, how do we know that the equations of physics are not just iterative relationships. What if there are iterative relationships that enforce the physics constants. c = f(G,h); speed of light is an iterative function of Planck and gravitational constant. Planck cosntant h = f(c,time it takes for nature to establish enough resolution). And G = f(c, geometry). Three iterative relationships. My examples are just to get the conversation started. If there were three primary equations that iteratively arrive at the physics constants, then it might be possible to upset this equilibrium approaching iteration. In doing that, it might be possible to tamper with the constants themselves. But then: What are those three primary equilibrium equations?

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry wrote on Dec. 8, 2009 @ 22:35 GMT
Evermore, between the lines

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe wrote on Dec. 9, 2009 @ 01:09 GMT
Georgina,

I transitioned from a social/humanities topic to a possible way the laws of physics might be implemented. Was it too drastic a transition?

One of my talking points was that physics/engineering/chemistry/etc all rely that the system will approach an equilibrium. But "equilibrium" seems to imply "dead". There are lots of living systems that are not in equilibrium, animal life/biosphere/economony/emotions/etc... Systems that are not in equilbrium are probably too difficult to model or predict.

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Dec. 9, 2009 @ 01:54 GMT
This thread has gone a bit off any physics track. I think this recession is a bit more than a siimple economic downturn. I think this is the beginning of American decline as a world power. It is very clear that China will be running the world by the mid-21st century, with Europe and India assuming sort of second place positions. The United States is a classic case of a declining power, which I suspect is evolving into a neo-third world nation state.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

James Putnam wrote on Dec. 9, 2009 @ 02:19 GMT
Dear Steve,

Thank you again for your kind remarks. I wish to point out that when I have responded to your messages, I gave limited responses. That is because I have difficulty understanding what you are saying in English. This is not your failing, it is mine. I am a typical american who knows only English. The difficulties in communicating are mine. It is because people of other nationalities know more than one language that I can participate so well on the Internet. I thank you and all other non-English speaking people who learn English and make up for my deficiency.

James

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe wrote on Dec. 9, 2009 @ 03:17 GMT
Lawrence,

I checked out the Jay Hanson die off link. You pretty much summarized what the link had to say. The link was anti-American; oh well. The world is still mad at us because we removed a tyrant from power; do you want him back? I'm not sure I know what China has that will give it the edge in the middle to late 21st century; perhaps motivation? Sure their economy is growing; they are a major user of oil now. Perhaps they will swallow up an oil country at some point in the future; Russia, I doubt it. China swallowing Iran might be a future headline. I doubt the Chinese will be too concerned about protecting the world oil supply. They would suck it dry, which is what the US gets falsely accused of.

report post as inappropriate

James Putnam, wrote on Dec. 9, 2009 @ 04:52 GMT
Dear Dr. Crowell,

Ok so, as a physicist, you feel educated enough to make grand pronouncements about God and religion, and, now our political future. I would encourage you to first straighten out theoretical physics so that we no longer have wild theoretical speculation, but rather, practical empirically substantiated knowledge.

The United States of America will decline if we relinquish our foundational principles. The most important of these is to offer liberty to ourselves and others and, when severe difficulties arise, as in the American confrontation between slavery and freedom, to offer a rebirth of liberty to ourselves and others. Liberty is more important than individual survival.

Liberty is based upon the highest level of political intelligence achieved thus far. It is not the fruit of socialism or communism. It is the fruit of American style, as in the Bill of Rights, restricted individualism. The restriction seeks a balance between individual rights and the liberty of all. It is more valuable than economic security. Liberty requires us to remain vulnerable. It is worth the risks. Times may be good or they may be bad, but, liberty must survive.

If the world is going to have a chance to survive humanitarian crisis, or economical crisis, or environmental crisis, it is the United Sates of America that has the best attitude and means to help ourselves and the world to avoid these climaxes.

So much of the current academic attitude presents a grossly distorted universe, a grossly distorted idea of government, a grossly distorted idea of economics, a grossly distorted idea of morality, and a grossly distorted idea of the United States of America.

I do not know yet if this description applies to you or not. However, if fqxi should decide to start a thread on the character and future of America, I will participate.

James

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry wrote on Dec. 9, 2009 @ 06:38 GMT
Jason,

It is a link. It works for me. Just takes a little while to load. You can find it on You tube. Lyrics fitting the current debate and mood, IMO.

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe wrote on Dec. 9, 2009 @ 07:10 GMT
As an American, let me tell you why America will remain a dominant and influential nation for the next thousand years. You see, intellectual prowess and genius are useful in the short term; but from an evolutionary perspective, they are completely useless. The new hominids who will have amazing survival skills; they will come from places like the Jerry Springer Show and also anyone who makes a movie called Jackass. For some reason, evolution favors the dumbest and most obnoxious kinds of people. These same dumb and obnoxious people will continue to join the Armed Forces and run for elective office. For the next thousand years, the United States will occasionally get the itch to go to war; a Republican will get elected as president, a war will start, and a tyrant will be devoured. The world will always hate us and falsely accuse us of being an empire. For some strange reason, freedom will continue to spread.

For the strangest reason, these new hominids will not be able to say words like "extinction", "environment", or "hominid". They will believe in God, read horoscopes, and outlast the smart people by 500,000 years.

report post as inappropriate

Ray Munroe wrote on Dec. 9, 2009 @ 15:01 GMT
Dear FQXi Friends,

Where did the hyperdrive blog go?

I like James' perspective.

I'm not a pessimist, I'm a realist. Don't trust the government too far - they are nearly bankrupt themselves, special interest groups will get their piece of pie before any of the rest of us, and their fiat money is only as good as their ability to back it. I don't think that one President (or one political party) can get us out of this mess - regardless of how good a speaker he is. We are in a cyclical finacial crisis, and it may take two or three 'scapegoat' Presidents to slowly lead us out (unless we use a major war like FDR did with WWII). Don't trust large corporations too far - they are nearly bankrupt, and will pay their CEO's huge bonuses for mediocre performance before their shareholders see a penney. Don't trust the stock market too far - it may be a huge Ponzi scheme, and the brokers are higher up the pyramid than we are. Silver bullion is still affordable, but you can't eat it for breakfast. Our FQXi friend, Owen Cunningham got laid off a couple of days ago.

At the end of the day, all you can really count on is yourself, your intelligence, your strength, and your available resources (invest those wisely!). The future of America depends on the next generation. If they maintain their freedom and dignity, then individuals (like Jason or James) can invest everything they own into marketable ideas. Liberty and small business was the foundation of this country's wealth. Just imagine how wealthy Jason could be if he patented and marketed the first hyperdrive vehicle! I could say I knew you before you became a Billionaire.

Have Fun!

Ray

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny wrote on Dec. 9, 2009 @ 15:07 GMT
Hi all ,

Dear James ,thanks .

To all ,

The last threads have a politico economico realism .....I insist on one fact important ,the humans are humans and it doesn' t exist differences between them .If the actual situation and the crisis is not taken universaly ,the problems shall be more important like a ultiplication and acceleraton of the chaotic systems .If the Earth continue to consider differences ,thus the checking will be a parameter of the local prosperity .

Whe you say Lawrence about USA and Chine ......I don't agree because the essential parameter is not inserted ,the universalism and its aim ,simply ,thus we are humans and that is all .I repeat and I think it a real important reality of our Universe in evolution .

Some human inventions are dedicated to disapear in Time and Space evolution ,fortunaly (weapons,borders, differences ,monney ,....)If a real universal community govern this planet ,all will be different and towards this harmony .The problem is not the universal laws ,but the young age of humans ,we are babies and we make errors ,but we evolve and thus we can improve ,optimize and harmonize.Of course now it is just a question of time and locality ....but I beleive strongly what the real solutions exist and are applicables furthermore by this simple fact the adapted harmonious sciences .

If we rest with our bad habits ,we shall add chaos ,on the other side if we apply the universalism ,it will be easier for all humans without differences .An american is an human ,a chinois is a human ,a musulman is a human ,a christian is a human ,a bouddhist is a human ,a black ,a white ,a blue ,a green ,....a rainbow this humanity ,a diversity of colors unified in this light ......we are youngs ,very youngs at the universal scale ,thus let' s improve the universality .

For the climat and the energy and the food ,simply the soils ,on air and in oceans ,it is the key of the balance on Earth ,a real harmony between animals and vegetals .Thus let's improve these soils .A global commission of the soil must be implanted on Earth ,it is essential .The argilo humic complex ,which I work since several years is the key with some adds by powders to dynamize the bio chem system and its interactions .With a good soil ,the rest is evidently more simple in the bio diversity of the global ecosystem .

The solutions exist .The problems too exist .....universalism or earth actual system ,to be or not to be .....

Take care humans and let' s improve the universalism the uited is a key too ,the ideas of 10 are better than the ideas of 1.All is there the complemenatrity towards the harmonisation ,the perfect sphere for me and its spheres.

Steve

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry wrote on Dec. 9, 2009 @ 19:24 GMT
Jason,

because you asked. (According to the model I have been proposing.)

Energy is change in quaternion spatial position. It can be identified as kinetic energy within 3D vector space or promotional energy along the 4th spatio-energetic dimension.

All matter and particles possess both forms of energy because change of spatial position is occurring both within 3D vector space and along the 4th spatio-energetic dimension. Potential energy is the potential to cause change in quaternion spatial position.

A small change in spatial position can lead to a subsequent larger change via the processes of chaos and complexity occurring within quaternion energy-space.

Change in position is conserved (and thus energy is also conserved) in that every change in position causes a further change in position of matter, particle or medium. There is thus ceaseless perpetual motion within the quaternion Mega-universe.

Therefore terminal entropy is not the inevitable fate of the universe. IMO.

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry wrote on Dec. 9, 2009 @ 19:54 GMT
With regard to my previous post,

when discussing entropy, argument based on the expansion of the universe does not apply to the model I propose. There can not be such expansion IMO as it does not permit explanation of gravity, that -is- possible with contraction along the 4th spatio-energetic dimension.

It must be an "illusion" due to motion away from the origin of the EM observed, along the 4th spatio energetic dimension, which will be away from the origin of the EM of all of the stars. This could hypothetically give rise to the red rift which may be incorrectly interpreted as all of the stars moving away from the earth or telescope through 3D vector space. Movement away along the 4th spatio energetic dimension will also give spatial rotation.

Current universal expansion theory relies upon insertion of a cosmological constant to fit the observations, interpreted as expansion, with the scientific and mathematical framework. It is a "fix". There is not therefore theoretical verification of the supposition of expansion.

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Dec. 9, 2009 @ 20:05 GMT
The one thing which marks our current age is the rapidity of events. The rate things change is exponentially increasing, and this has some resonance in history as well. If you want to look at civilizations which lasted (well nearly) a thousand years it is best to look at the Old Kingdom of Egypt. If you heap the new Kingdom and the Hyksos period between them Egypt worked out for nearly 2000 years. Long lasting Empires after then had a shorter duration, such as Rome. We can forwards to the Ottoman Empire, Spain, Britain and so forth and you might notice that the time frame for each of these is generally shorter. Now it is America's turn, and I expect the exponential contraction of time frames to have much the same result. If China takes the world center stage they might hold it for an even shorter time period. We live in an age of increasing impermanence.

http://vimeo.com/6437816

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Dec. 9, 2009 @ 20:16 GMT
I hit the submit bar instead of what I wanted to do. The link is at

visualizing empires decline

which is kind of fun to watch.

As for America, this nation was founded on some good ideas which came out of the enlightenment. I don't want to go into depth on this, but there are some rather negative elements to our civilization. A lot of what we learned about the American Revolution is sort of silly. The real reason for the revolution was to grab land held by the Cherokee and Chocktaw nations, which formed buffer regions between the British and French Americas. This was negotiated in the end of the 7 Year War, called the French and Indian War here. It took Andrew Jackson to clear the natives out. The American Revolution was a complete disaster for native people here. I could write much more on this, but... time and space are limited.

I will say that a civilization is entering its greatest depths of trouble once its people begin to see themselves as having some mandate of righteousness or some invulnerability.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

James Putnam wrote on Dec. 9, 2009 @ 20:54 GMT
DR.

Crowell,

So is your point that the Declaration of Independence about all men, read that all people, are created equal was nothing more than a ruse to rout out the Indians? The patriots who fought and died did this so that others might grab Indian land?

"I don't want to go into depth on this, but there are some rather negative elements to our civilization."

James

report post as inappropriate

James Putnam, wrote on Dec. 9, 2009 @ 22:49 GMT
Dear Dr. Crowell,

Everyone and every discipline and every nation and every religion and every whatever has negative elements. This nation was founded on Great Principles such as self-government. Self-government is not silly. What is silly is thinking that the merit and worth of this country depends upon evaluating those things that really were or 'now appear to us' to be wrong, from today's perspective, with what American's did 100 and 200 or more years ago. What do you know about the difficulties and great challenges they faced? What would you have done then? What makes us worse and less deserving of success than other civilizations such as Stalinist Russia or Communist China?

Are numbers of people more important than quality of principles? Is liberty not worth the struggle of human endeavor? Is that your point? What is so perfect now, either in America or the rest, of any other part of the world, that has anything at all to do with risking losing liberty? Regardless of whatever else is happenning, because of politicians or university professors, the most important quality that American's, as a whole, have to offer to the world is liberty!

The last thing we, or the world, needs are panels of experts, or even worse a single panel, or even worse a single person of specialized but limited, this includes physicists, education deciding, or even worse 'declaring', how the rest of us must live our lives in order to be responsible and moral and right!

It seems to me that it is popular for intellectuals to declare previous generations as being innocent, immature, and underdeveloped and, lacking moral clarity. Now, I will say declaratively that: This generation knows very little about facing real challenges, and knows very little about real sacrifice and still to this day knows very little about the reason for existence, whether through physics or any other of our compartmentalized scientific endeavors.

Everyone is limited in their knowledge and correctness. That includes us today. Now would you please, until moderaters end this, please explain why America is worse compared to either others in history or today to the rest of the world?

James

James

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe wrote on Dec. 10, 2009 @ 01:11 GMT
Dear Lawrence,

You said:"I will say that a civilization is entering its greatest depths of trouble once its people begin to see themselves as having some mandate of righteousness or some invulnerability."

It's funny you should mention righteousness and invulnerability; maybe we learned to do both 'better' then the empires of ages past. If American goes away and China becomes the world's superpower, do you think your freedoms will be any safer? I understand that freedom is difficult to deal with. It requires much more personal responsibility. You have the freedom to voice your opinion. Well, you would in the United States. I'm not sure Europe really likes freedom.

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Dec. 10, 2009 @ 01:53 GMT
I posted a response to this, but on the wrong page. I put it on

The Art of Combining...

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe wrote on Dec. 10, 2009 @ 03:28 GMT
Dear Lawrence,

I've been overseas, to Germany when I was a young pup; and to Kuwait when I served in the US Army; I served during peace time. If the United States has supported or installed dictators such as Sadam Hussein/others, then that presidency was wrong to do it; whether or not it was a lesser of two evils decision, I cannot say. I am told that the US helped Sadam hussein get into power so that Iraq and Iran could slug it out for a while. If that is so, then we should have removed Sadam from power during the first gulf war. We Americans complain about our government; but the truth is, we have it so good here in the US. We have a lot of freedom, some health care, and a government that is trying to figure out how to best serve its people. In foreign lands, I seriously doubt that those governments give a damn about their citizens. If Kuwait, South Korea, present day Iraq, seem worse to those who wait for America to decline, let me tell you something. North Koreans are starving; I've seen video where a man was so hungry, he started munching on cow poop. South Koreans have had the US in their country for 60 years; they eat well and enjoy various freedoms. Before Sadam Hussein was removed from power, he was torturing people; not water torture or barking dogs (which was wrong), more like body shredders and rectally inserted coke bottles. There are still problems in Iraq/Kuwait, but the torture faciliities have been destroyed.

The Constitution of the United States has been a powerful document towards the cause of human and civil rights. Those human and civil rights have emerged in nations where the US intervened. I am pretty sure that the Chinese government, whom you are rooting for, would wipe their back side with our civil rights legislation. I'm sure the Tibetans would agree. But feel free to blame the United States if that makes you feel better. But don't look to the Chinese to improve anyones quality of life.

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry wrote on Dec. 10, 2009 @ 09:21 GMT
James,

Freedom of thought and speech are also important freedoms.

Learning sometimes involves changing ones former beliefs. Polite and reasoned debate with others allows current opinions to be modified in the light of additional information or a new perspective. I find that much that I used to believe, including much "received wisdom" and teaching is untrue but that does not mean that I was formerly ignorant or at fault. My former opinions were valid given the information I had available. I am still learning. To suppress thought and speech or to verbally attack another person because we dislike particular ideas, viewpoints or their expression is to hamper or prevent the free exchange of ideas and the opportunity to learn from each other. IMO.

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny wrote on Dec. 10, 2009 @ 12:56 GMT
Hi ,

Thus all is correlated with the good and universal governance .It is only simple like that ....a faith and universal people acts with compassion and rationality .A unconscious governor simply uses its power in a capitalist optic where the individualism becomes a sad reality .

At this moment the monney is like a tool even if it is going todisapear ,thus if this tool is given in the good hands ,that will go ,if not that will continue .......Thus a real earth commission ,universl and totaly universal without differences must be implanted .To divide to better reign is not a good solution ,perhaps only for the individualist ,but in an universal and evolutive point of vue ,of course it is different .At this scale all is the same with its secificities and uniqueness .This line of reasoning implies thus an universal equation where ther intelligence and the consciouss are parameters of the harmony .The young age of humans must be well analyzed ,the time thus is a hope .Can we analyze this actual system only with some years of history .2000 years ,10000 years ,100000 years .....and the 13.7 to 15 billions years .....just a fraction of seconds .Our perception must have the large scale to encircle the real aim of a created system like us ,humans.If the universal laws are applicated ,that will go ,if we continue to apply the human inventions non harmonics ,that won't go.

Best Regards to all ,and thanks for your relevances.

Steve

report post as inappropriate

Ray Munroe wrote on Dec. 10, 2009 @ 14:21 GMT
Dear Lawrence,

This is a response to comments left on "The Art of Combining..." blog site.

I have a trace of Minorcan in me. My Minorcan ancestors came to New Smyrna, Florida as endentured servants as part of Dr. Andrew Turnbull's British colonial experiment in the late 1700's. The slave ship from Africa shipwrecked and all were presumed dead, so the endentured Mediteranean peoples of Dr. Turnbull's colony effectively became the slaves. They endured hardships, disease and death until they finally marched to St. Augustine and asked the Governor of East Florida for freedom.

My wife is part Cherokee. They were forced off of their lands (recognized by British treaty) by the State of Georgia and the Federal Government because of the Georgia Gold Rush.

I live in the South. I have seen the dangers of racism.

I know that America isn't perfect. The Constitution gave rights to white, male, landowners, but was designed to be changed - to adapt with the generations, and thankfully it has.

Freedom of thought and freedom to pursue our individual dreams is important. It was those freedoms that helped America become the Superpower that we are today.

Every generation has a choice to be great, or to fade away into history.

Our current national debt is about $40,000 for every man, woman, and child in America. How far will our Debtors allow us to extend our credit?$50,000 or \$100,000 per person? At some point, they will ask for a substantial payment or collateral. What happens when the Federal Government asks a large state like Texas or California for a trillion dollars, and the state says "No, you spent that money on Special Interests, not on our State"? If one state splits from the Union, we could imagine a chain reaction whereby the South, Midwest and Northeast also become independent countries, and the "US" becomes at least 5 different nations split along historical, regional, cultural, and/or racial lines. The USSR faced a financial crisis (may I emphasize that financial crises are cyclical and 'normal', but to Lawrence's point they may grow exponentially more extreme) and split into 15 different nations.

That is one scenario whereby America could collapse. Another is if we give away our freedom in exchange for 'phantom' security. I say 'phantom' security because you never have real security without real freedom. In the past 100 years, more people have been killed by their own governments than have been killed in wars.

America isn't perfect, but I'm not perfect, and I don't know any perfect people either.

Can we get back to hyperdrives? I want to see Jason make his first billion dollars.

Have Fun!

Ray

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny wrote on Dec. 10, 2009 @ 14:54 GMT
And if we speak about arms and weapons in total transparence .....THIS STUPID ?HORRIBLE AND INCREDIBLE INVENTION must be what ?? an human equation ,monney +weapons +vanity +education =chaos ,differences and stupidities .thus wars ...if the stupids humans hane not arms in their hands ,of course the things shall be different ....don't turn around the pot ,

It is not the fault of a state or a country or a religion ,no the problem is simple ,it exists bad and good people everywhere and they imply the chaos due to their tools ,the equation is simple ,.....

Regards

STEVE

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Dec. 10, 2009 @ 16:45 GMT
We did sort of detour here a bit. My point mainly is that things around us are never as certain as we would want to think. It is a human characteristic to see their tribe, god(s), rituals, tradition etc as something far superior to everyone elses. This continues with the modern world every bit as much as with the past. Further, with time compression due to the rate that things change we live in an age of impermanence far more than in the past.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

Stee Dufourny wrote on Dec. 10, 2009 @ 17:47 GMT
Yes that is a sort of detour but it is essential .Here is my little point of vue .

The things around us are the same for all ,only the human point of vue can be chaotic.

The reason is to be universal ,the rest is not important .The evolution and the improvement of course are a real hope to decrease the stupidity.

If you give a game to a young people ,his age is 6 years ,and if on the box ,we see ,interdfiction under 12 years ,thus you can correlate this fact with our actual tools .Don't give tools to a unconscious people thus .It is only simple like that .

If the differences are made ,it is impossible and of course don't confound the specificity and the uniqueness with the individualism ,there a balance too is necessary .The human is a simple catalyzer of the physicality in evolution and optimization .Our story is just a step and our errors too ,the time is more important than just our age .

It exist ionly one tribe ,the humanity and its aim .The universe is not a play ,just a foundamental evolution towards the perfect harmony between mass systems ,spheres and their lifes and creations ,these polarisations of complementarity .All is complementary ,all .

The future is a harmony .

What is our rule of humans ,simply catalyzers of the truth .The sufferings thus in this line of ectrapolation will disapear like the stupids imaginaries inventians implying chaos .The present becomes thus a time of responsability where the past is analyzed ,studied to improve and evitate the errors and that to be in the synchronization of the universe and its aim .The polarisations aren't there for nothing ,all has a rule of complementarity if and only if the foundamentals are inserted with pragmatism .We can't fortunaly change this universality and it is well like that .The future =hope thus .......

Sincerely

Steve

report post as inappropriate

James Putnam wrote on Dec. 11, 2009 @ 00:18 GMT
Dear Georgina,

Thank you for your message. I will respond to you and others in my own forum. The response is not there yet. I will let you know when. You are correct that free thought and speech are imortant parts of liberty. I am uncomfortable discussing this subject in this forum. This website is a science site so I will delay for a little while and see what the moderators have to say. In the meantime I will prepare a message. One question to you: Why did you not submit an essay entry? You are very active otherwise.

James

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe wrote on Dec. 11, 2009 @ 01:11 GMT
While Lawrence was deriding gods, rituals and traditions, one of the chains that bars the darkness, the evil within every human, was allowed to escape, for it felt no fear of eternal retribution. As humanity continues to withdraw from the Creator, more darkness will come forth. Perhaps it is better to let the faithful do what they are intended to do.

It is better to let those of different faiths find some common ground, then it is to deny the Creator's existeence.

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Dec. 11, 2009 @ 01:34 GMT
The recent period of the human race, since the Younger Dryas, has seen a comparatively stable climate, no significant asteroid impacts, moderate volcanism and so forth. About 10,000 years ago our ancestors began to transition from hunter-gathering to horticulture and later agriculture. Then about 5000 years ago villages grew into towns and eventually cities. So here we are, having consumed a...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

James Putnam wrote on Dec. 11, 2009 @ 01:44 GMT
Dear Dr. Crowell,

What does your message have to do with the Year of the Warp Drive? Why don't you request a special forum? I would participate.

James Putnam

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Dec. 11, 2009 @ 03:12 GMT
Well above I argue pretty much that warp drives will not happen. To be honest I think they are physically impossible. They are similar to perpetual motion machines or time travel. I mentioned how our view of the future has changed, and so forth. What I am saying largely is that we are in a whole lot of trouble, and the future seems to be taking us further away from science fiction ideas --- except for maybe Soylent Green.

LC

report post as inappropriate

James Putnam wrote on Dec. 11, 2009 @ 03:34 GMT
Dear Dr. Crowell,

What kind of society or form of government do you think might be a solution to the problems that you see stemming from the Year of the Warp Drive? Is there a present name for it?

James

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe wrote on Dec. 11, 2009 @ 05:45 GMT
As a proponent of the warp drive, the biggest obstacle I see is that we do not have clarity on how the space/space-time architecture is constructed. We just don't know how the laws of physics are implemented. It could be an E8 or some kind of space-time crystal lattice; it could just as easily be some kind of amorphous aether-like brane. Whatever implements space-time, we have to take a piece of it, the piece with the hyperdrive starship inside, surround it with some kind of warp field, and transmit equal/opposite momentum from the spaceship, through the warp field, into some kind of hyperspace. For right now, we'll just have to wait for more physical evidence. By the way, the dark matter that we discussed a couple of pages ago, is probably significant. There seem to be invisible yet gravitationally significant objects in space, called dark matter. Whatever dark matter is, it doesn't seem to acknowledge light, because light passes right through it. Perhaps these are regions of space where the permitivity and permeability are zero? Just a thought.

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Dec. 11, 2009 @ 13:35 GMT
As I indicated the group velocity of a wave can change so it is greater than the speed of light. The general problem with warp drives or any system which is proposed to travel between points x and y at a speed faster than light is that one can easily transform coordinates of observation so that you travel from y to x. It would also be possible to transform the opening points x and y, if these lead wormholes or some other spacetime where its purported speed of light is c' >> c in our spacetime, so that you get time travel or closed timelike curves.

I suppose this is in part why things got a bit on the un optimistic side, for the future we see today is not at all working out to be the future seen in the past.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe wrote on Dec. 11, 2009 @ 17:40 GMT
The connection between space and time via the speed of light is nothing more than the propagation of electromagnetic fields to connect charges. In other words, electric and magnetic fields connect electric charges. At velocities v > c, charges between the two inertial frames can no longer interact. FTL is potentially a cloaking technology, as well. Space-time is not a movie reel that you can rewind. If you find a way to travel FTL, you lose the ability to interact with the physical universe. The problem with FTL is that it constitutes a separate space-time that doesn't easily project into our space-time. What is the difference between an object in another dimension versus an object in our 3D space that cannot interact via electromagnetic forces? If charge interactibility can be considered sufficient to represent regions within a dimension, then velocity of charge interaction would lead to a second space-time. So why don't charges from two different space-times interact? Why do charges interact at all? If we knew that, we would know why charges of different space-times don't interact. With that information, we could look at the conditions necessary to make two space-times interface with each other.

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Dec. 11, 2009 @ 20:31 GMT
The speed of light is really a conversion factor between time and space. It happens to define the paths which massless particle travel on, such as photons. Anything travelling along a spacelike interval (FTL) can interact with the rest of the universe. By the simple fact you travel from x to y and carry information you communicate is an example of interacting with the exterior universe.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe wrote on Dec. 12, 2009 @ 00:00 GMT
Dear Lawrence,

I think we take the words "information" and "information content" for granted. To say that information can only travel at the speed of light is true, subject to the absence of evidence of a second space-time. We really don't know what space/space-time is made of; so we can't really confirm or eliminate the possibility that a second space-time exists. If a second space-time actually did exist, I could potentially transduce particles or signals to the FTL space-time, then transduce them back into this space-time. No time travel results.

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Dec. 12, 2009 @ 12:44 GMT
If you had two spacetimes that are connected by some bridge, similar to a wormhole (in fact it is a wormhole), then you could in principle boost that opening so as to make a time machine. The connecting region between the two spacetimes is essentially a wormhole, and this can be looked at in some more extensive length than I can write about as the wikipedia site on wormholes.

General faster than light ideas can be found here as well. In effect any faster than light travel can by various means be transformed into travel through time by general relativity.

Arguing this is becoming somewhat fruitless, as you keep wanting to wordsmith things in ways so as to shave down a point. These things have been pretty extensively studied, and they all lead to various uncomfortable conclusions. The configurations are unstable. Such as crossing a wormhole bridge or what might be called a stargate into another region so as to return to our spacetime at some other point. This is a multiply connected topology, which can only exist for certain vacuum configurations where T^{00} < 0, such as a Boulware vacuum across an event horizon. This can potentially happen for near Planck scale physics where the Heisenberg uncertainty principle will permit a ΔT^{00} < 0, so there is a quantum virtual wormhole. Yet this is a nonlocal connection which can’t communicate information.

One reason why earlier I got into the thread on how the future is not shaping up as we once thought is to illustrate how one really should not pursue physics with some idea of a purpose or future prospect. It is best in my opinion to remain neutral on that matter. This is one reason I am not a partisan of the strong anthropic cosmological principle. For all we know our future path might in fact be some spectacular planet-wide train wreck, or where we fade out into the dark as the last financial investment scheme which profits for a time is Soylent Green. We are observers in the universe, but for all we know we might just be some sort of highly improbable fluke. Though in a spatial universe that is infinite anything which is not forbidden or impossible is in a sense mandatory.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe wrote on Dec. 13, 2009 @ 02:09 GMT
I am also starting to think that arguing about FTL propulsion is fruitless. You keep using the wormhole/time machine argument. I keep running into the dilemma that nobody, including either of us, really knows how space-time is implemented or what it's made out of. The other problem is that neither FTL propulsion nor wormholes have ever been observed; so we're both arguing from positions of deep speculation. However, we are both trying to argue from logical and carefully considered points of view.

If you want to exclude the existence from wormholes, that's fine with me. I'm not arguing for wormholes, stargates, time machines or perpetual motion machines. For FTL propulsion to be possible, a second space-time has to exist. This is where it starts getting hard to understand. I have to temporarily manipulate the relationship between two space-times in order to get a bubble of standard space-time, with the spaceship inside of it, to exist in the FTL spacetime/hyperspace. The metaphor would be a bubble of air under the water. The issue becomes, can I get the bubble in the first place? You will argue that a bubble leads to a waterspout which is basically a worm hole. I will argue that if you try to do this, the waterspout (wormhole) collapses, and your spaceship is back in regular space-time (possibly in many pieces). The wormhole cannot become stabilized. But I don't need a stable wormhole. I need a bubble of space-time to occur in hyperspace. When the rockets fire, high energy gas is pumped into another bubble. That bubble moves away at a very high speed. The two bubbles will obey conservation of momentum and conservation of energy laws within hyperspace; the two bubbles are effectively hyperspace objects. Your next question I anticipate/hope will be, "how do you create a space-time bubble in hyperspace?" More realistically, your stubbornly persistent response will be "you can still create a wormhole, therefore FTL = time travel."

It's Christmas time. I implore you, don't deny me the question! Just ask it!

report post as inappropriate

Ray Munroe wrote on Dec. 13, 2009 @ 02:59 GMT
Dear Jason,

If Quantum Gravity is the key to understanding the relationship between Spacetime and Hyperspace, then we need to find large gravitational fields - Black Holes - to test this hypothesis. Although I think there is another time dimension, it could be imaginary time. How would that tie into your ideas?

Have Fun!

Ray Munroe

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Dec. 13, 2009 @ 16:03 GMT
I wrote a book on the issue of sending probes to nearby stars. I discussed some of the issues of wormholes and how they can be converted to time machines. This figure is from the book and illustrates how the so called twin paradox can lead to time travel. The two openings of the wormhole are illustrated in a spacetime diagram. The opening on the right is sent out at near light speed, and then accelerated back in the opposite direction at again near light speed. The numbers illustrate the local intervals of time on clocks near the two openings. So an observer travels from near the left face at near light speed, jumps in the right opening and emerges in the left opening at the coincident times. The winding through the worm hole continues and there is a piling up of this geodesic at a Cauchy horizon. Now if the observer elects to do this winding around the wormhole in the region future to the Cauchy horizon there is again a piling up of geodesics which approach the Cauchy horizon from the future. This is the region of closed timelike curves, or a time machine.

Now instead of there being a worm hole, we just think of these openings as any sort of stargate, even if it connects to another spacetime with c’ >> c. Since the interval between the right face and the left (the spacetime connection between jumping in the right opening and emerging from the left) is spacelike I can always choose a frame where the observer emerges from the left opening at a time coincident with entering the right. So the same winding up of paths will occur so there is a Cauchy horizon. The region to the future of the horizon will then be a “time machine,” or a region of closed timelike curves.

Cheers LC

attachments: fig11_3.jpg

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe wrote on Dec. 13, 2009 @ 19:11 GMT
Dear Ray,

If quantum gravity is about closed loops in space-time, that just sounds too much like "reel to reel" physics; I don't see how we can rewind back in time. As for manipulating gravity in some convenient way, I tend to think of gravity as similar to an electric flux similar to E=epsilon*D where epsilon is the permitivity. In the case of gravity, G is a dielectric which is dependent upon the particular space-time in question; G should scale as (c'/c)^2.

Physics has probably gone as far as it can with what we can experiment with and look at from space; I am hopeful that someday we might come across some strange new material that might provide a way. I agree with Lawrence that it is probably impossible to create a stable wormhole and/or stargate. Perhaps if you try to accelerate one side of it, there is an ever increasing chance it will become unstable some how. If I can generate a space-time bubble in hyperspace, every attempt to make a stable wormhole will undoubtedly fail.

Lawrence assumes: GR --> FTL --> wormhole --> time travel = branch is impossible.

I argue that: GR --> FTL = possible;

however, FTL --> wormhole --> time travel = impossible.

I am not, as Lawrence suggests, "word-smithing". It is Lawrence who stubbornly grasps wormholes as a defense against FTL. The mathematics that he uses is only as good as the universe's willingness to obey it. All of Lawrence's mathematics are based on equilibrium conditions. Yet nature has demonstrated it's ability to manifest stable systems that are not in equilibrium. If FTL propulsion relies upon a delicate balance between our space-time and a temporarily existing FTL space-time, then traveling FTL for a few light years might be possible. Then again, I don't have the credentials needed to be able to stubbornly ignore the nuance that FTL propulsion can be accomplished without wormholes.

report post as inappropriate

Ray Munroe wrote on Dec. 13, 2009 @ 22:08 GMT
Dear Jason,

General Relativity says that space and time are intertwined, therefore FTL travel = time travel is a REASONABLE assumption. What you need to hope for is the possibility that this symmetry is broken by a new (as yet undiscovered) Quantum Gravity. I fully undersatnd Lawrence's position, and your desire to accomplish the 'impossible'.

Have Fun!

Ray

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Dec. 13, 2009 @ 22:58 GMT
The wormhole is used as an example of any sort of opening in our spacetime cosmology that either bridges two regions in the universe or which connect with some other spacetime. In effect your idea amounts to a wormhole from our universe to another one, where you can travel at some c' >> c and then enter another wormhole to reenter our universe. You also presume that times in the two spacetimes are synchronized in some way, which is a broad assumption, but I will let that go for now. Exchange the terms wormhole for opening or what ever. Then if you can lasso an opening in our universe and accelerate it in the way I pictured with wormhole openings you then have closed timelike curves --- a time machine.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe wrote on Dec. 14, 2009 @ 00:09 GMT
That is why FTL appears to be impossible. You are reaching for a wormhole. A wormhole is not necessary. You leave space-time with a bubble of space-time. That bubble is drifting in hyperspace. You don't care about the clock for hyperspace because that flow of time is occurring outside of the bubble. You can worry about getting lost in hyperspace; you can worry about the flow of time in the bubble being different from the flow of time in the rest of the universe. It is also reasonable to wonder how you create the bubble in the first place. You are over reaching; you don't need a worm hole. All you need is a bubble. The laws of the universe are telling you that a wormhole is too much to ask for. So don't ask for what the universe won't give you. Ask for something smaller that doesn't attempt to violate causality. A wormhole violates causality. A bubble does not.

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe wrote on Dec. 14, 2009 @ 00:44 GMT
It looks as if world sheets already have built into them a "reel to reel" like quality in that the time dimension or ct is assumed to exist across all time. This give the impression that it's possible to construct a wormhole between two events in space and time. Maybe a fuse with a long wick might be a better model. The fuse can always burn fast or slow, but it can't 'un'-burn.

report post as inappropriate

paul valletta wrote on Dec. 14, 2009 @ 01:50 GMT
The Hubble Space Telescope can "see" back in time to the early moments of the big-bang, but the same HST cannot see 3 or 2 seconds ago? Think how many moments have occured from the big-bang to "now", HST must be seeing through a large number of "past,now moments" to focus in on about 3-seconds after the "big-bang", how do you set a destination, if you do not actually know the "time" of the location you want to travel to?

When the HST first recieved images, the time-stamp, or physical date given to the images were of a couple millions light years ago, then HST recieved images of older period..etc..etc how come?

Why could not HST be tuned to just 3 seconds ago?..what if 3 seconds ago was really the big-bang, what if to travel away from the "now", a second ago or 3seconds ago, will br the big-bang, just by violating the spacetime continuum, may trigger the actual big-bang?

Our "now" has energy conservation to adhere to, send one molocule out of our "now" would have vast entropic consequences?

Nobody or anything has access in sight, sound or other physical process to any time domain other than "now"! It may be that we need to physically send the HST back to the Universe early moments, to actually confirm any evidence of a big-bsng. So how about entanglement?..if we could produce entanglement of a HST, then send it backwards, re-laying the information directly to our physical real-time..now?

The unphysical mode of transportation may be called an AVATAR via AVATATION, which is basically entanglement scaled up to relative spacetime!

best p.v

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe wrote on Dec. 14, 2009 @ 02:46 GMT
The Hubble Telescope can see light from millions of years ago because that light just now arrived. In that sense, we can look at the past, but we cannot change it. There is a world of difference between looking at light from the past, and interacting with the past to change the present. It's not like we can look at light from millions of light years away, reach into the past of some star, and change anybody's future. The time machine that you thought you created using a wormhole is nothing more than a fancy inspection of history without causal interactivity. There are two different manifestations of the past.

1. Look at the past, but you can't change it; and,

2. Time travel to the past and change it, which is impossible.

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Dec. 14, 2009 @ 13:10 GMT
The distant universe we observe is in the past. From an elementary perspective light observed from 100 million light years out carries information about a galaxy 100 million years ago. Things become a bit strange the further out you look. The velocity of a galaxy at a distance d is v = Hd, where the distance d is not too far out so a linear expression works. The z value is for z > 1 traveling faster than light as z ~ v/c for the radius of the FLRW metric then and now not too different. The most distant objects optically imaged are up to z = 9, and the CMB occurs out to z ~ 1000! This sounds a bit odd of course, for we are detecting photons from galaxies traveling faster than light. Yet this is a manifestation of a sort of frame dragging, where the stretching out of spatial surfaces of the universe is carrying particles with it. The objects are not so much traveling faster than light as they are commoving in a frame with spacetime. Further, since the speed of light is locally always the same a photon from a distant z > 1 galaxy will be commoved away as well, but it enters regions where that commoving is less and less until it eventually ends up to the telescopic aperture.

As for the three seconds, there is a bit of an ambiguity. We can’t optically image things before the surface of last plasma or radiation dominated scatter at the CMB. This surface of last scatter represents the state of the universe about 380,000 years after the big bang. The universe was optically opaque. If we improve our abilities to detect gravity waves and neutrinos we could detect the configuration of the universe much earlier. If the three seconds refer to three seconds ago from “now,” that is easy to see. If you observe the moon you are seeing it 1.3 seconds ago. The light from the sun escaped the photosphere about 9 minutes ago and most planets you see is from light which scattered off them anywhere from a few minutes ago (Venus) to a few hours ago (Saturn or Neptune for instance).

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe wrote on Dec. 14, 2009 @ 17:23 GMT
Dear Lawrence,

While we still disagree about FTL propulsion, some of what you posted might come in very handy. I've been wrestling with an effect that I didn't realize was called Frame Dragging. The space-time bubble within hyperspace could also be described as frame dragging for the FTL spaceship; the spaceship carries its own space-time with it. The transition from the spaceship traveling FTL to regular space-time might be explained with a variation of linear frame dragging. By the way, frame dragging suggests the existence of p3-brane or something resembling an aether.

Thank you. You made my day.

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Dec. 14, 2009 @ 22:23 GMT
The frame dragging is done with certain criteria which prevent FTL. There was some years ago an idea about a big rip, and in this case the spacetime might permit closed timelike loops. The energy conditions are such that it could happen. Yet, that condition does not appear to be real, for the equation of state between energy density and pressure has to be w > -1. Data indicates that w = -1 within reasonable error bars. In the end it looks as if we are made out of meat. Now matter how you slice it up, if you try to link two points in spacetime by an interval with FTL you are equivalently travelling faster than light.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

Dr. Cosmic Ray wrote on Dec. 14, 2009 @ 22:46 GMT
If we were made out of tachyons, we could probably beat the speed of light, but that probably wouldn't be as much fun as being made out of meat.

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Dec. 14, 2009 @ 23:06 GMT
Besides, if we were made of tachyons we might be either shifted off to "infinity" or stuck on M2-branes in black holes.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe wrote on Dec. 14, 2009 @ 23:46 GMT
I watched the Made of Meat video; ugh! As for frame-dragging, I'm left with the feeling that frame dragging is the dirty little FTL secret that the physics community doesn't want to talk about. It is a vulnerability to the whole space-time interpretation of space and the speed of light. If a region of space can appear to carry a galaxy faster than light, then why don't we see that galaxy appear to rewind or travel backwards in time? There has to be something wrong with the very idea that a wormhole can create a bridge to the past via FTL simply because the past does not exist as a separate universe. Since the pathological fear of FTL phenomena is so strong, let me be the one to take a sledge hammer to the light cone assumption. WHACK!!!

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe wrote on Dec. 15, 2009 @ 00:28 GMT
World sheets come from Feynman diagrams. But even for a particle that might be quantum mechanically smeared out in time, it doesn't give you the ability to change historically established events. For an FTL particle, why would it travel back in time as if trying to change the past in some closed loop event? Why wouldn't it just travel further and faster, with possibly peculiar interactions with regualar quantum particles?

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry wrote on Dec. 15, 2009 @ 01:42 GMT
Leave the poor light cone alone Jason. Just leave time out of the dimensional framework and consider the scalar dimension to be spatio-energetic the same as the other 3 all the time travel problems disappear.

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Dec. 15, 2009 @ 03:42 GMT
There could be closed timelike curves, which leads to the paradoxes of time travel. Anything which involves the propagation of information or a causal influence outside a light cone of timelike or null influences is equivalent to a time reversal under boosting conditions.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe wrote on Dec. 15, 2009 @ 03:42 GMT
Dear Lawrence,

Here's your light cone back; it looks a little bumpy now, sorry.

Dear Georgina,

For causes that change the potential energy, the effect propagates at the speed of light (or less). For an FTL cause whose effect travels FTL, we have to use potential energies for some FTL appropriate charge. Maybe Ray has some tacheocharges we can use. Of course, FTL would mean the electric and magnetic fields have to be weaker to account for a smaller permitivity and permeability.

Dear Ray,

I've got a tachyon charged frame dragger for us meat folks. Let's go for a ride!

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry wrote on Dec. 15, 2009 @ 11:15 GMT
There is space that the earth has passed through and space that it will pass through at different positions along the scalar dimension. The space that it has passed through is now vacant or filled by other matter. There is not another copy of the earth in that space that the earth formerly occupied.It is not therefore the past but aft space.

We could not travel to the past as it does not exist but it could hypothetically be possible to travel to aft space by slowing progression along the scalar dimension. Why hypothesise that there is anything there at all? Why not just have 3D space and no scalar dimension? Because although time can be argued to be an entirely biologically generated subjective reality experience it is necessary to have a physical scalar dimension to satisfactorily explain gravity, the experienced passage of time, the self construction of the universe (via continuous change of position along this dimension) and energy input for this self assembly process due to loss of universal potential energy, and to give mass energy.

We can not see what is within this aft space and whether it is vacant or occupied because instead we see an EM image of former configurations of matter in space that have changed or no longer exist. Likewise there is space that the earth will occupy afore along the scalar dimension. It is not possible to see what exist within this afore space, as all we can see is the EM image of former configurations of matter. No light travels back from afore space although gravitational effect can be observed. We are completely blind to that which exists afore and aft along the scalar dimension with the exception of the gravitational effect of matter in afore space, as our senses only detect stimuli from within 3D vector space.

According to this model the material universe (not the EM image) can be considered as one 3D spherical layer of the Megauniverse hypersphere. Other universe layers existing afore and aft, not past and future. This is the hyperspace. Travelling between universe layers would cause no temporal paradox because this is travel between different spaces not different times.

The reason for this model is that it explains the foundational questions in particular regarding time and gravity that the current space-time model does not. It solves the grandfather paradox and others. I do not see the logic in inventing a model, in order to permit faster than light travel, utilising modified space-time. When space-time has been found unsatisfactory in so many regards. Such as causing paradoxes and leaving so many foundational questions unanswered.

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe wrote on Dec. 15, 2009 @ 21:09 GMT
There is indeed logic to inventing an FTL theory with additional space-times. It encourages us to think about how the physical universe would have to organize it; such that we don't directly observe it. We have to look at all of the ways the speed of light is tied into the physics. Permitivity and permeability change/scale if we change the speed of light; the acceleration of gravity changes;...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe wrote on Dec. 15, 2009 @ 22:01 GMT
Steve,

I found something interesting with regards to our rotating spheres.

http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/lookingatearth/eart
h_drag.html

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry wrote on Dec. 15, 2009 @ 22:42 GMT
Jason,

You said "There is indeed logic to inventing an FTL theory with additional space-times." Not if space-time itself is a flawed interpretation.IMO.

Time does not belong in the foundational framework of the model but emerges via interpretation of change occurring within the framework by the biological organism. Additional space is logical. A medium is logical. But more space-time is not a logical choice, when space-time has demonstrated over 50 + years that it does not to work, because of the paradoxes and unanswered questions.

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Dec. 15, 2009 @ 22:44 GMT
Frame dragging does not necessarily give FTL in the way you might think. A black hole frame drags. A Schwarzschild black hole can be thought of as a system which slides points on a spatial surface towards it. As the event horizon those points are moving at the speed of light. So any matter particle is moved with this, similar to a piece of wood on a current. At the horizon if an observer tries to escape they find they can’t, for to do so means they must travel the speed of light or greater than the relative velocity of points around them. This results in an event horizon. A distant exterior observer can’t observe any body reach the horizon, but is rather contracted and time dilated so they appear to approach the horizon ever more slowly. The observer falling deep into the black hole is carried along by the commoving set of points (frame dragging) at enormous velocities until the velocity approaches infinity at r = 0. That observer is trapped in this region until they reach the singularity --- there is no escape. Similarly with cosmologies there is an event horizon, though of a different character. The cosmological constant Λ determines a cosmological event horizon at r = sqrt{3/Λ}, which is about 10 billion light years out. We can receive light rays from objects out there, or as they were in the distant past, but we can’t send a signal back. So a mirror placed beyond the cosmological horizon will not reflect an image of our galaxy, even at a much earlier time. Similarly a mirror on the event horizon of a black hole will not reflect an image back.

Frame dragging which carries objects at v > c, here c measured locally and v measured at some distance through curved spacetime, generates an event horizon. This sets up unidirectionality for the transmission of information. You can send information to an observer in a black hole, but the observer in the black hole interior can’t send a return message. Similarly with cosmologies we can receive information from beyond the horizon, but we can’t send information to anything beyond it. With the Alcubierre warp drive event horizons are also generated, which have Hawking-Unruh like radiation that destabilizes the spacetime. Indeed this is common with FTL schemes, such as wormholes. There is a type of event horizon generated with renders the solution utterly unstable. Classically the solution can exist, but any perturbation of the solution, which can include a single photon, generates an event horizon and the solution is unstable. In fact the quantum vacuum can render it unstable.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe wrote on Dec. 16, 2009 @ 20:37 GMT
Dear Lawrence,

Frame dragging is really required for FTL propulsion. Admittedly, that sort of takes us back to something like the Alcubierre hyper-drive. So I end up with a space around my FTL rocket that is quantum mechanically unstable; I'll just post a sign at the airlock that says:

Danger - Do Not Exit Spacecraft During FTL Travel.

Dear Georgina,

This idea that time is an interpretation just doesn't fit with observables. Even now, I only have two hours before I have to go to work. I never seem to have enough time. Clocks run at different rates, slower for spaceships accelerating to and from light speed. Reversal of time really requires "reel to reel" or "VHS cassette" space-time which really violates conservation of energy. If 4th dimensional energy make sense to you, then continue to work on it.

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe wrote on Dec. 17, 2009 @ 03:15 GMT

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30600749/

Objects in space-time cannot move FTL. However, why can't space-time itself move FTL?

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Dec. 17, 2009 @ 04:14 GMT
Dark energy is a case of frame dragging. The de Sitter metric term is g_{rr} = exp(Λt/3} and the gravitation is a = g^{rr}∂_tg_{rr} = Λ/3, which is pushing galaxies apart. Here Λ is the cosmological constant. But this sets up an event horizon. Sure space can pretty much do anything, but in frame dragging where v > c there are achronal null boundaries set up, such as the black hole event horizon. This is prevent you from making a round trip faster than light, or excaping a black hole.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe wrote on Dec. 17, 2009 @ 07:42 GMT
I'm not surprised that dark energy is a form of frame dragging. While trying to explain FTL propulsion to a friend of mine, I did start to see that there would definitely be problems with how the clocks of the spaceship and the rest of the universe are related to each other. I figured that the relationship between the two clocks would be somewhat random as far as which one was faster. For FTL propulsion, any temporal relationship that might have existed between the two frames is probably lost in some uncalculable region of distorted space-time.

Don't worry, you'll still be able to make the return trip. You should have a good idea of when you'll get back. But you might need to take extra food with you in case your clock on board the FTL spaceship speeds up. Oops!

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe wrote on Dec. 17, 2009 @ 21:41 GMT
I've been thinking about the kind of gadgets I'm going to need to design a hyper-drive system. The laws of physics are indeed strange to work with. However, for the persistent and creative mind, here is the first:

Space-time generator: this device generates new space-time as a 3D volume. One might not notice that it was really generating new space-time. Since the universe is in fact expanding for unknown reasons, I decided to take advantage of that, and presume that new space-time can be created. I will, of course, tamper with its parameters.

Why do I need a space-time generator? Because I have to get everything inside of this volume of space-time to reach superluminal speeds; the whole volume has to move FTL. Therefore, I need to be able to control this volume of space-time.

Any thoughts? Come on! Somebody hit me!

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe wrote on Dec. 17, 2009 @ 22:21 GMT
Another gadget: The Holographic Manipulation Sphere. Every quantum particle and force inside of the volume of the sphere is mapped to a 2D manipulation surface on the sphere's surface area. Designer forces (quantumly entangled superstrings) are used to directly manipulate the particles and forces inside of the volume. This is, of course, an attempt to resist entropy. If there are air molecules inside of the sphere, surface forces would allow you to manipulate their movement. Attempts to force a lowering of the entropy might not work, but you could move molecules around and rearrange their position without adding energy to the enclosed system. I got the idea from black hole entropy.

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny wrote on Dec. 18, 2009 @ 12:27 GMT
Hi all ,

Very interesting link Jason ,Thanks ,The different spheres and their properties of evolution seems relevant .An Ocean of Fe ,solid ,liquid ,gas ,life .....The time and the polarisations with the main centers have built beautiful spheres .

You say

"If there are air molecules inside of the sphere, surface forces would allow you to manipulate their movement. Attempts to force a lowering of the entropy might not work, but you could move molecules around and rearrange their position without adding energy to the enclosed system. I got the idea from black hole entropy."

Very relevant about the thermodynamic and the changement inside a specific system and volume of fields .

Regards

Steve

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe wrote on Dec. 18, 2009 @ 21:50 GMT
Dear Steve,

Thank you for your encouraging thoughts. I have neither a doctorate nor the fear of letting others know that I don't understand something. Having said that, I am starting to suspect that the physics community does not understand entropy the way they think they do. A black hole is described as always having an increasing entropy. I relate that to a deck of cards that gets larger and larger. Since black holes are the ultimate in destruction, maybe they are not the best metaphor. But I can think of plenty of systems that can become ever more complex and more varied, which seems to be what entropy implies. But those same systems do not have to always end in destruction. In other words, entropy suggests greater complexity and more variables; but systems with more complexity can also become more orderly. For example, multiculturalism seeks to add more variety; it also seeks to create harmony within the whole. Another example is, we reach out to learn more, take in more information, because we want to find a solution to some problem. These are examples of increasing complexity/entropy, but with the objective of creating order. As in the example of a card game, we want to be dealt a better hand; depending upon how the game is played, we simply have to wait until we get the cards that we want.

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny wrote on Dec. 19, 2009 @ 11:20 GMT
Hello Jason ,

You are welcome .The doctorate is not the most important .Personally I stoped all my schools and universities ,I haven't certificates or doctorates .Is it important ,yes for some people or a system but for me frankly I am laughing .

The essential is to learn the good books ,the good works ,the good ideas with pragmatism .Is it essential to have a doctorate to understand this universe and its laws ,no evidently .

Your creativity is incredible and your desire to find is too incredible .You are a real searcher .

I agree with you about the understanding of the entropy .Many confound the unknew behind our walls and its infinite energy and the entropy in our physicality and furthermore an other entropy if the evolution and the increase of mass is inserted .3 kinds in fact .

I agree too about the increasing of the entropy for a BH ,because if all increases its mass ,these spheres thus the energy ,entropy increases.Their rules semm intriguings and these spheres and their big mass permits something like a wall of gravity .It is like a serie in fact like you said with its specific sequences and its order.The rule is fascinating .I prefer a re diffusion than a destruction more a tool of balance for all spheres in a spherical galactic sphere .Thus all turns around this BH .Do you know Jason if the sciences commnunity knows the diameter of the sphere ,central of our galaxy ,the milky way .I say me if we are sure about the distance too ,27000 AL from this center ??? If I have this diameter and volume ,thus I can calculate the fractal of spheres for our galaxy ,afetr if I insert the good serie I can find the center of our Universe and thus if I insert the evolution and the rotation I can find a better topology .In fact the rotation around the universal center implies a new real topology .The distance thus seemms very relevants because all turns and changes its position .Our datas thus must be re thought .The Universe seems different thus about distances between spheres .

Regards

Steve

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe wrote on Dec. 22, 2009 @ 19:58 GMT
If a definitive 1 or 0 can only be transmitted at the speed of light, how fast can an ambiguity be transmitted? I can think of lots of examples of communication that is ambiguous or emotional that just doesn't make the cut for being logically distinct and therefore convertible into "information content". I don't watch court room tv, but I used to. I would watch people make these horrendously...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe wrote on Dec. 24, 2009 @ 07:18 GMT
FTL propulsion: it must be this way if it is possible, at all. Space-time obviously exists; some kind of hyperspace exists. You need a bubble. Inside of the bubble is your spaceship. The surface of the bubble converts energy from space-time to hyperspace/hyperspace to space-time. The bubble is charged with tachyons until, like an elevator, it finds another space-time or hyperspace. Just like the new "space" that causes the universe to expand, space can become charged with tachyons, causing everything inside to vanish into hyperspace; or, space can lose it's tachyonic charge and reappear in space-time.

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe wrote on Dec. 25, 2009 @ 06:23 GMT
Dear Lawrence,

On the other topic you mentioned that there might be two time coordinates. As it turns out, that might have to be the situation for a hypothetical FTL propulsion engine. When the spaceship enters hyperspace, it's time line becomes independent of the rest of the universe, thus two time lines. I assume these two time lines are independent?

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Dec. 25, 2009 @ 14:32 GMT
The other time coordinate in superspace is a sort of mathematical construction. In 26 dimensions the square of numbers 1 through 24 sum up to be the square of 70. This is a metric, basis for how 24 dimensions can in a null setting exist in 26 dimensions with the addition of the square of 0, 0^2 - 0. If you change the sign on 0^2 (which trivially does nothing) then you have an anti-de Sitter realization. So this extra dimension of time is really a mathematical construction or something which involves modular systems for how quantum mechanics exists with spacetime physics.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe wrote on Dec. 25, 2009 @ 18:59 GMT
So there are many universes, each with their own forward time-line or reverse time-line, but there is not a second time-line? I would have thought that a second time line would make it possible to relate the times between any two universe via a set of parameters that express how they're related. That would certainly be a step towards figuring out if there exists a force that could transmit between two universes. Without such an inter-multiversable relationship, it will not be possible to prove there exists.

On the other hand, the fact that space is expanding could be interpreted as a transformation from one kind of space to another; the fish in a pond might see the water level rise, but they don't notice the rain that condensed from water vapor. Since the velocity of light, c = sqrt(tension/density), one might wonder if the Cosmological constant energy density can be related to the velocity formula for our kind of space. Another kind of space might have different properties, different velocity of light, different Cosmological constant, etc. Since cosmologists are baffled by the quicker than expected expansion of the universe, maybe it's expansion occurs by a process unrelated to the Cosmological constant. In a similar way, the spacing of water molecules in a pond has nothing to do with whether the pond water levels will rise or fall. The Cosmological constant may simply indicate what kind of space- (time) is under consideration.

report post as inappropriate

Ray Munroe wrote on Dec. 26, 2009 @ 02:49 GMT
Dear Jason and Lawrence,

The more I play with ten, eleven and twelve dimensional models, the more I am convinced that there is a second time dimension - most likely imaginary time. It is related to the breakdown of a 12-dimensional Spin(12) (or SU(12)) into a 4-dimensional Spin(5) (or SU(5)) of Spacetime and a 6-dimensional Spin(7) (or SU(7)) of Hyperspace and a 1-dimensional U(1) (of Gravity?) and the 12th dimension disappears! Neat magic trick!

Have Fun!

Ray

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Dec. 26, 2009 @ 13:31 GMT
Such decompositions of groups happen on two levels. There is the 26 dimensional bosonic string, which results from a light cone condition on the 27 dimensional Jordan matrix algebra J^3(O). In 26 dimensions there are 8 dimensions for the vector terms an E_8 of vector valued fields, plus the corresponding spinorial fields and their conjugates for tow additional E_8s. These are 24 dimensions in general. There are three diagonal scalar terms, which with the light cone constraint reduces them to 2 independent degrees of freedom. Now the spinor fields are framed with the vector fields in a supersymmetric configuration, which reduces this "sector" of 24 dimensions to 8. With the 3 scalars this is 11-dimensions and the light cone condition reduces that to 10. So this is the relationship between the bosonic string in 26 dimensions and the supergravity multiplet in 10 or 11 dimensions. There is a corresponding result with vertex algebras on fields.

The decomposition of the 26 dimensions or the 24 dimensions on E_8s has its correspondence in the supergravity multiplet with a duality of 5 dimensions for AdS and the S^5 corresponding to conformal fields. The role of the spin(7) is the group which G_2 fixes a vector as a subgroup of spin(8).

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe wrote on Dec. 27, 2009 @ 03:57 GMT
Dear Ray and/or Lawrence,

I wish to consider the possibility that a volume V_st of space-time (3D spatial volume), could be transmuted/converted/transformed into a volume V_hs of hyperspace. Particles can be transformed; why not space? Just for the sake of discussion, please allow an imaginative example.

There exists a Schwartchild unit volume of space-time. The time portion is absorbed into the speed of light. The volume can be spherical, but not stack-able as a crystal. Let's call a unit of space, a Volium (Vm); let me know if there is a better name. A tachyon is used to transmute a volium of space-time into a volium of hyper-space: Vm_st + Tach Vm_hs.

A volume of space-time sustains a constant zero point energy E_st; a volume of E_hs might have more zero point energy subject to a function f(c'/c), where c' is the velocity of light for hyperspace. Since a tachyon is not supposed to carry energy, I will work out this discrepancy. I expect a unit volume of hyperspace to be larger than a unit volume of space-time.

What if tachyons permeate a region of space with physical matter inside? I want to presuppose that the volume of space-time can be converted, not into a volume of hyperspace, but instead be converted into a transducing membrane. Perhaps a spaceship inside is generating the tachyons. The tachyons are trying to transmute the space-time into hyperspace; however, there is too much energy content/particles to allow the transmutation. So a closed membrane, a bubble begins to form; this bubble is trying to minimize the surface area. When the membrane can completely enclose the spaceship inside, the space-time inside remains as space-time. However, the enclosing membrane might be able to make the spaceship vanish into hyperspace as a hyperspace bubble.

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny wrote on Dec. 27, 2009 @ 13:23 GMT
Yes a comment ,I am at the hospital now ,you make me crazzy the two mavericks and Jason the creative .

Sorry I must go ,a person with a white sweet say me "Hello Mr Dufourny ,How are you this day ,"he is nice "He continues ,he has small spherers ,blues and others red,he says me ,it is good for your health yo know Steve ,you shall sleep better ....hihihi this hotel is very good ,the food no but the small spheres are goods .....I see multiverses and a spaghettis of strings in a x dimensional aspect in all now .

Ps the visits at the hotel are between 18h and 20h .

Ps2 HAPPY NEW YEAR I can go out for the new year ,the master of the hotel is cool .

Spherically yours

Steve

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Dec. 27, 2009 @ 16:15 GMT
@ Jason, unfortunately the idea you offer here does not make a whole lot of sense. Honestly I am having trouble trying to make much physical sense of it.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

Ray Munroe wrote on Dec. 27, 2009 @ 17:07 GMT
Dear Jason,

Within the framework of my model and Second Quantization, the assumption is that bosons are an 11-dimensional reciprocal space that can transform one 8-dimensional fermion in direct space into another 8-dimensional fermion in a different direct space.

If you are relying on new dimensional spaces to transform the old 4-dimensional spacetime into a new 4-dimensional spacetime, then I think you need to play with all 26/27-dimensions of Lawrence's model. I haven't recognized that sort of structure in the first 12 dimensions - maybe I overlooked it because I wasn't considering the possibility.

Dear Steve,

You seem to be taking the correct pills. They make you happy. They help you to make the world a better place (with your efforts towards the science center and aiding Africa). And they help you to see multi-dimensions. I apologize that I cannot make visiting hours this week - I do not have access to a private jet to transport me to Belgium. I hope you and your mom are doing well.

Dear Lawrence,

How did you like that new tiling pattern that I e-mailed the other day? I haven't been checking my business e-mail, so I don't know if you have already responded.

Have Fun and Have a Happy New Year!

Ray

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Dec. 27, 2009 @ 19:03 GMT
I presume the tiling is related or is a type of triality on the 8 adjoint representation of SU(3). I am sort of trying to ferret out what this means exactly. With the connections between AdS_3 and QCD with G_2 this appears to be some sort of duality on spin(7) and SU(3) or QCD.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe wrote on Dec. 27, 2009 @ 19:53 GMT
Dear Dr.Crowell,

You said,"unfortunately the idea you offer here does not make a whole lot of sense. Honestly I am having trouble trying to make much physical sense of it."

Now we can make progress.

The fundamental difference between our standard space-time and hyperspace is that the speed of light is very different; by definition, c' >> c. Since standard model...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Ray Munroe wrote on Dec. 27, 2009 @ 20:04 GMT
Dear Lawrence,

I think this tiling represents the (6+2)-dimensional Hyperspace of Gravi-Weak-Higgs. Electro-color represents Spacetime. A Spin(7) (and G2 or U(1)'s?) of Hyperspace collapses into a G2 triplet of Spin tiles. It is a triality symmetry dual to QCD, but it is not QCD.

Have Fun!

Ray Munroe

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe wrote on Dec. 27, 2009 @ 20:30 GMT
Dear Ray,

Could you elaborate on what a (6+2) hyperspace means? It is suggestive of a second temporal dimension. However, I was left with the impression from Lawrence's explanation that a second temporal dimension is just a math trick involving 0+0.

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe wrote on Dec. 27, 2009 @ 21:24 GMT
Dear Ray,

You said: "...the assumption is that bosons are an 11-dimensional reciprocal space that can transform one 8-dimensional fermion in direct space into another 8-dimensional fermion in a different direct space."

Ok, let's pretend you're turning on the FTL propulsion engine that is based on this technology. What will happen if the fermions that make up your body are transformed from standard space fermions into another 8D fermion for hyper-space? Hyperspace goop should come to mind. :-D

report post as inappropriate

Ray Munroe wrote on Dec. 27, 2009 @ 21:26 GMT
Dear Jason,

If I truly have 12 dimensions (I think I do, but it could be a misinterpretation of my model), then I need to explain why M-theory is only 11-dimensional, and why String Theory is only 10-dimensional. Light cone constraints can reduce effective dimensionality by one, but I need to reduce it by two, To me, this implies TWO light cones. Perhaps there is an imaginary spacetime within hyperspace that is dual to our spacetime. My hyperspace has 8-dimensions, and these fracture into branes of lower dimensionality. One of the broken symmetries displays a (6+2)-dimensional tiling. That intermediate state is what Lawrence and I are discussing.

I might have all kinds of fun ideas for you to explore. I hinted at it over the last couple of days. I am also trying to understand how these so-called 'tachyons' fit into everything.

Have Fun and Have a Happy New Year!

Ray

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe wrote on Dec. 27, 2009 @ 21:59 GMT
Hi Ray,

You are coming up with some cool stuff! Reduce by 2? How about a light cone adjustor? In other words, the velocity of light should be dependent upon another parameter. Let me tell you something about fast and slow. My girlfriend Margot made me go Christmas shopping with her; it took forever! She would do all this extra stuff. She had coupons and had to find the particular item on sale. Then, after we bought are stuff, she would check the receipt and find a mistake, something that would easily add on another ten minutes to a already boring shopping experience. That's when it hit me! Light is slow because it has to do a lot of extra stuff. But what extra stuff? Well, I know that permittivity and permeability are tied to the speed of light. Why should it take longer to produce a larger magnetic field and electric field? Does it help to break up your light cone into a permittivity and permeability plane?

report post as inappropriate

Ray Munroe wrote on Dec. 27, 2009 @ 22:50 GMT
Dear Jason,

I'll think on it. Whether we call it a plane of Real Time vs. Imaginary Time or Permittivity vs. Permeability may be topologically equivalent. You and your girlfriend sound dual to my wife and I. My wife browses through 'Sale' items without a shopping list. This year, our 10-year-old daughter typed a Christmas list. Some things were older collectibles that I was able to find on the internet (Amazon & E-Bay). For the other stuff, I mapped out 4 stores that were all close together with a high probability of having what she wanted. I had her list and a list of prices. An hour and a half later, I was finished and on budget. Just Do It!

Oops! My wife just returned from shopping the After-Christmas Sales. Gotta Run!

Ray

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Dec. 28, 2009 @ 01:01 GMT
Ray: I think I understand what you are saying with this. This is the field representation for the holonomy group. This does contain three families of quark and lepton doublets with the additional fields (H, s_f) which I am not sure I understand. However, this on a low energy scale might decompose into an SU(3) which is dual to the spacetime part as an AdS. This seems to suggest it could be an aspect of what I wrote earlier on, which I sort of re-edit here. The G_2 group is contained in SO(8) which decomposes into SU(3) with a 3 and bar-3. We can also extract SU(3) from the SU(4), which is also a subgroup of SO(8). The G_2 group is then a holonomy defined by the spin(7) in SO(O), which fixes a basis in S^7 sphere. The low energy decomposition of AdS/CFT with the AdS group SU(4)  SU(3)xU(1) should connect with QCD on the CFT end of the correspondence. The parton configurations are QCD ~ AdS_3 amplitudes for black hole (like) amplitudes which might occur. Above the TeV, or Higgs domain, there should be some partial recovery of the conformal renormalization group flow. At this energy scale there is expected to be some small amplitude or channel productions corresponding to quantum (super) gravity. Hence parton systems of quarks will have amplitudes for quantum black holes.

Quantum black holes as the AdS_3 ~ SU(3)xU(1) have color and electromagnetic charges, and can be classified according to their SU(3)_c and U(1)_em representations. In proton-proton collisions the allowed particles which can form the black hole are quarks, antiquarks, and gluons. There are then nine electric charge states which may exist ±4/3,±1,±2/3,±1/3, 0. The ±4/3 and ±1 charge states can only be formed by

quark pairs, the charge states ±2/3 and ±1/3 can be formed by either two quarks, or a quark and a gluon, while the 0 charge state can be formed by either a quark-antiquark or pair of gluons. The possible color states in a two parton scattering are

3x3 = 8+1 -> g_2 state

3x3 = 6+3

3x3 = 6+3

3x8 = 3+6+15

3x3 8 = 3+6+15

8x8 = 1+8+8+10+10+27S

Since black holes form representations of SU(3)c, they are predominantly colored, but can occur as colorless singlets. The four color scheme corresponding to SU(4) is then at lower energy the SU(3) color and the U(1) hypercharge or em charge. We should finish this and write it up in a short paper.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Dec. 28, 2009 @ 03:10 GMT
Jason, I must confess that I don’t think anything you are thinking about with FTL will ever work, even in theory. However, it did make me ponder some issues which have bothered me for a while. This is how it is that in the so called multiverse scenario one can have separate universes, or cosmologies, exist as quantum expectations of the superspace field. It is not hard to imagine how it is...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe wrote on Dec. 28, 2009 @ 05:26 GMT
Dear Lawrence,

Does space-time wrap around a black hole the way scotch tape wraps around the cylinder? In other words, if I shine a laser down at the black hole onto something shiny, will it bounce back in a straight line, prior to the event horizon, or does the beam of light go round and round the black hole like tape is wrapped around the roll?

Of course, this could make it possible to save the astronaut who is whipping around the black hole for a few weeks. The poor astronaut would have lots of time to wait before his demise. However, if that is not happening, the astronaut has a few minutes to live before he is turned into space goop. We're an FTL starship able to fly in and somehow find that goop, I'm afraid that he would still be irreversibly dead, FTL propulsion not withstanding.

For FTL propulsion to be engineered, I require a second space-time with speed of light c' >> c. I have to put the spaceship inside of a protected standard space. That protected space then has to be interfaced with a containment surface made out of hyperspace space-time, a bubble. If the containment surface is completely sealed by the bubble, then the spaceship is, for all intensive purposes, removed from our universe. If it is not completely sealed, then the spaceship still exists in our space, but there is severe electromagnetic interference. In fact, a tiny breach, an antenna that is sticking out, is enough to hold that spaceship in our space-time. Passing through the bubble membrane might be impossible. If a nuke is fired at the membrane and detonates across the surface of the membrane, all that energy will be transmitted to the bubble with the spaceship inside of it. The explosion will give the membrane and spaceship quite a jolt. It might also take care of the antenna that was sticking out. There is also a chance that the membrane might fail to sustain its spherical shape, resulting in a crushed spaceship.

If the membrane is sealed tight, the bubble with the spaceship inside will appear in hyperspace as a hyperspace object. If the spaceship fires the thrust from its engines, that hot gas will become enclosed in a membrane of its own; the result will be equal and opposite forces. The bubble, with the spaceship inside of it will begin to accelerate, very quickly, in hyperspace.

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe wrote on Dec. 28, 2009 @ 07:09 GMT
Dear Lawrence,

I think that the temporal ambiguities related to FTL propulsion are coming from assumptions you make about wormholes. First, you are assuming that it is possible to create a wormhole that extends from the future to the past; you have introduced something that is impossible, something that violates causality.

Second, when you create this wormhole, you want it to maintain the same calendar dates and clock time at both ends of the wormhole; this is another place where you introduce a paradox. You want to maintain the same calendar date and clock time at both ends of a wormhole that you want to span time. You have built in a contradiction; when the model spits the contradiction back out, you take that to mean that FTL is impossible.

In order to model FTL propulsion, you cannot use a wormhole. You have to use a space-time bubble. The thrust from the FTL rocket will be packaged in tiny space-time bubbles that will carry momentum away from the FTL rocket bubble; the rocket will of course experience momentum in the opposite direction.

You cannot travel to the past because the past does not exist. You can't travel into the future with any hope of coming back to the past; you are allowed to stay in hyperspace for as long as you like.

You should be quibbling about how I can attempt to move a bubble of space-time through a medium or hyperspace that has not been proven to exist. I am expecting that criticism. I really want to try to resolve that criticism.

If you continue to try to argue using wormhole time machines and closed time like loops, then I will have to assume that you have a belief that is based in faith. I really want to understand when, how and why the temporal ambiguity occurs. Maybe we should tie a rope to the astronaut or just let the FTL spaceship fall in and then using FTL engines to get back out. I think we are approaching the point of ambiguity.

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny wrote on Dec. 28, 2009 @ 10:09 GMT
hahahaha dear Ray ,

You know it is not serious for the vsit ,I rest there for a very long time ,hihihi thus there will be still a lot of visits .

The blue pills are very good ,hihihi .

To be serious a little ,thanks for my mom ,she is better ,she evolves .

I must be happy ,if not I am going to cry all the times with my past and life.

Behind the most dark sides,it exists always a ray of light .Fortunaly .

Happy new year to all .

Steve

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Dec. 28, 2009 @ 16:19 GMT
If you put a mirror near the event horizon of a black hole a small distance from the black hole event horizon, with some means of keeping it at a fixed proper distance from the BH, a photon will reflect off, but not with the same energy you send it in with. The “placing” of a mirror near the event horizon is theoretically a technique for regularizing fields in curved spacetime. This is used in the Rindler spacetime near the horizon to compute an entropy S = (1/96π^2)(F/d), in the limit d - -> 0. This involves some sensitive mathematics I will skip here. Yet the purpose of having that distance d is to estimate how energy or entropy varies as d becomes small. To make a long story short a mirror will reflect no energy back out in the limit it approaches the horizon. This then illustrates the quantum fields do not diverge in some bad way at the horizon.

Space does not wrap around a black hole in the way you appear to think it does. If you start out with a spatial surface it intersects the horizon and the subsequent evolution of the spatial surface evolves so subsequent spatial surfaces are attached to the same intersection. So the spatial surface sort of folds in around the black hole, getting closer to it. I attach a couple of diagrams of this. The first illustrates what happens to a spatial surface around a black hole which forms and then quantum decays. The second illustrates a similar thing, but where the spatial surface occurs before the black hole forms.

Unfortunately you idea still will not work, because you are ultimately propagating fields in our spacetime on an interval which is spatial. General relativity can always transform these into backwards time developments of information --- or time machines.

Cheers LC

attachments: black_hole_and_space.gif, black_hole_caustic.gif

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe wrote on Dec. 28, 2009 @ 16:45 GMT
Lawrence said: "General relativity can always transform these into backwards time developments of information --- or time machines."

Can you show me how the transformation is performed, step by step? As it turns out, I do run into a bit of a problem using forces that propagate at velocity c. I really have to use a force that propagates faster than c.

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe wrote on Dec. 28, 2009 @ 17:23 GMT
If I drop a perfectly elastic ball in a gravity field, it should bounce and return to my hand with the same energy it left with. If I beam a laser to a mirror that is some distance d from the event horizon, it should return to my detector with the same energy it left with; when d reaches zero, the beam doesn't return at all. In between, the photons will gain more energy, as it falls into the gravity field, and then lose that same energy as it reflects back to the detector.

When you said, "Yet the purpose of having that distance d is to estimate how energy or entropy varies as d becomes small. ", were you suggesting that the black hole is permanently siphoning off energy from the photons, leaving them enervated when they bounce back to the detector which is positioned next to the laser?

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Dec. 28, 2009 @ 21:51 GMT
The attached figure, which I think I have attached before, illustrates two openings into a wormhole or some other “passage” between them. It matter little what the passage is through the openings, but rather that if you drop into one opening you emerge from the other. A photon or highly relativistic particle or observer can wind through these by dropping into one opening and emerging in the other and then traveling back to the first opening. Then as this diagram illustrates if one opening is boosted or accelerated outwards and then back you end up with a region past the Cauchy horizon with closed time like curves.

A mirror in curved spacetime or under acceleration is a canonical problem in general relativity and for quantum fields in curved spacetime. You might agree that if the mirror is past the horizon no photons are reflected back. This holds for the mirror on the horizon as well as just above it. It might sound a bit odd, but general relativity does that to you --- it gives results which are not always expected.

Cheers LC

attachments: 1_fig11_3.jpg

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe wrote on Dec. 29, 2009 @ 03:29 GMT
Dear Lawrence,

We really don't know how space-time is implemented; nor do we know under what conditions it would fail to work the way we expect. I'm afraid your opinion that FTL propulsion = wormholes = time travel is hard-wired.

On the mirror near a black hole problem, I wanted to try to go step by step, down to the event horizon, of what the falling observer would see, and then compare that to what the far away observer would see. Since a black hole is likely to accelerate falling mass-energy to relativistic speeds, I expect such particles to whip around the black hole many many times before falling in. I read some where that you can watch your buddy fall into the black hole for a very very long duration, like decades or longer. Your astronaut buddy would be killed within minutes of falling in, ripped apart by gravity waves. He would be forever lost. However, we could watch his image of a few minutes last for decades. Let's say that ten years after he falls in, an FTL spaceship becomes available. If you tried to swoop into the gravity well to save your buddy, you would only find an optical illusion. You would never be able to undo his death.

Since you believe unwaveringly that FTL propulsion = wormholes and time travels, I'm afraid that logic will not convince you. I did the best I could.

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Dec. 29, 2009 @ 12:47 GMT
The mirror gedanken experiment largely applies for radial inward directed photons. A particle can be in a stable orbit around a black hole for a radius r > 3GM/c^2, where the horizon is at 2GM/c^2. A particle between r = 2GM?c^2 to 3GM/c^2 will not remain on a stable orbit, though with a force (say turning on a rocket engine) escape is possible. It requires some effort to work through this.

There are two problems here as I see it. As I read what you write it is somewhat evident that you are not deeply familiar with general relativity, and lack a working knowledge (you can solve problems) in general relativity. If you were you would not write some of the things you do. The other problem is that you are not really asking an appropriate question. Foundational questions involve some resolution to a paradox or contradiction. This was what Einstein saw when he imagined himself on a reference frame moving with an electromagnetic wave. He realized on such a frame you would observe an oscillating electric and magnetic field at rest, instead of propagating as a wave according to Maxwell's equation. Similarly Planck saw a conflict which arose from assuming molecules in a body were harmonic oscillators with a continuum of energy values that lead to a flawed black body radiation spectrum. We are faced with a paradox or contradiction with quantum gravity. Now in trying to show that FTL exists you are not solving a paradox, but rather insisting upon imposing one. You appear to think that by saying the FTL motion occurs in some other space or spacetime that the problem is removed, but you are not considering how this ultimately involves the propagation of information in “our” spacetime in a way which results in these contradictions. There really is no way you can finagle your way out of this in a consistent manner.

I clearly can’t disabuse you of these ideas you have. However, if you look at the real physics and come to some awareness of the real problems we face you will come to some far greater intellectual depth of understanding than what can be had by trying to make science fiction ideas “real.”

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe wrote on Dec. 30, 2009 @ 01:11 GMT
Dear Lawrence,

Quantum mechanics acts one way when we're not looking, and another way when we look (measure). You say that information can't propagate faster than the speed of light; certainly not if it's being transmitted on an electromagnetic wave. But certainly, nothing in space-time can travel faster than c. What if FTL propagation can only occur if it is hidden from space-time, if space-time can't see it.

FTL propulsion,

step 1: remove spaceship from space-time;

step 2: fly to a distant star;

step 4: scoop up a sample;

step 5:remove spaceship from space-time;

Yes, I went somewhere far away and came back with a souvenier. Did I transmit information FTL? Nobody saw me transmit information. Space-time didn't see me transmit information. What's the problem?

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Dec. 30, 2009 @ 02:22 GMT
The information carried is everything from your memories to the quantum numbers composing everything in craft.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe wrote on Dec. 30, 2009 @ 03:14 GMT
I found a better way to approach the hyperdrive problem. Let us say there exists a hyperspace with its own speed of light c'. The laws of motion are similar to ours. I have a hyperdrive engine that, when powered up, it creates an interface field around the spaceship. Yes, we're back to the bubble. The closed surface of the bubble allows the spaceship to be effectively carried inside of the bubble. The bubble exists as a hyperspace object/material/particle, with a pocket of space-time inside of it.

When the rockets are fired, they have enough energy to accelerate the spaceship up to about 0.2c in space-time. When this energy passes through the bubble interface, energy is conserved. This allows the bubble to achieve a velocity of 0.2c'. The bubble CAN'T travel faster than the speed of light, c'. As a particle/material of hyperspace, it is required to obey the laws of hyperspace. The fact that a pocket of space-time is hiding inside of the bubble is none of hyperspace's business.

When the spaceship enters hyperspace, it is removed from space-time. All that remains is how do you map space-time information content into a hyperspace object. Whatever the mass content inside of the bubble, hyperspace sees a bubble with mass content m' = m (c/c')^2.

Information cannot propagate faster than the speed of light. But it can be mapped to a faster space-time. This is very similar to how computer programs run faster on a faster computer.

Time travel still cannot be achieved. You can't see the future and you can't travel back to the past. Also, energy is conserved.

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Dec. 30, 2009 @ 04:14 GMT
From the perspective of an observer in our spacetime information travels faster than light. If you did a test with a small system of particles you would find they drop out at a point or region x and then materialize at y faster than light. From your perspective information has traveled faster than light.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe wrote on Dec. 30, 2009 @ 05:36 GMT
A hyperdrive wouldn't be of much use if it didn't give the appearance of FTL. You're supposed to go, "Holy Crap! That ship went v = 50c!!!" But it did so without using the mechanisms of space-time that provide for motion. It did so by using the mechansims of motion of some other space-time (hyperspace). The real trick is, how do you create such a bubble that can interface between two space-times whose speeds of light are radically different. How do you map information content to a faster computer (space-time)?

report post as inappropriate

Florin Moldoveanu wrote on Dec. 30, 2009 @ 05:41 GMT
Dear Jason,

Let me try again to convince you that Lawrence is right.

step 1: remove spaceship from space-time;

step 2: fly to a distant star;

step 4: scoop up a sample;

step 5: remove spaceship from space-time;

but with a twist. Have Alice and Bob communicate with each other via letters. Alice is on Earth, Bob is on a planet on a distant star (the star at your step 2). Now replace step 4 with the letters between Alice and Bob and let your FTL propulsion spaceship act as the mailman between the two. Then using Tolman’s argument (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tachyonic_antitelephone) you will be able to implement an “anti-letter” (or “anti-telephone”) communication between Alice and Bob. Causality may not be disrupted for the driver of the FTL spaceship (your argument), but it can be disrupted for Alice and Bob (Tolman's argument).

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe wrote on Dec. 30, 2009 @ 07:42 GMT
Dear Florin,

I think what you have shown is that there is problem with the "information cannot propagate faster than c" statement. You might have to add a phrase, clause or exception that says, "only applies to propagation in space-time"

report post as inappropriate

Peter van Gaalen wrote on Dec. 30, 2009 @ 10:42 GMT
A particle within spacetime can't go faster then the speed of light.

But i have red that spacetime itself can go faster. 'Inflation' can propagate with speed faster then the speed of light. And spacetime around a blackhole can flow at bigger speed towards the black hole then the speed of light. Otherwise a falling person can't fall into the blackhole.

Can we jump from an inflating piece of spacetime to a stationary piece of spacetime? Can those pieces of spacetime glued together in some way?

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe wrote on Dec. 30, 2009 @ 11:49 GMT
Peter: Those are some of examples of cases where we know that FTL can occur. I want to pull a spaceship out of space time and into hyperspace. If I use an interface bubble with a volume of space-time on the inside, and a hyperspace space on the surface, I might be able to slip into hyperspace where the laws of motion operate at a higher speed of light c' >> c. However, I'm getting a lot of flack from people who say (1) information can't travel faster than light (even in a bubble), (2) the existence of our space-time makes another space-time impossible, and (3) Alice and Bob can't dodge time travel (for reasons that don't make a lot of sense).

Why can't I expect nature to create coaxial space-times? In other words, for those who like branes, there exists a set of space-times, all of which have the same center, like a balloon within a balloon within a balloon. This sets us up to be able to say that information cannot travel faster that c, for that particular brane or space-time that it's on. The light/photons/electromagnetic radiation on one brane are incompatible with the light/photons/E&M on another brane. Energy is conserved for transactions across two branes. In other words, you don't create or destroy energy by going to another brane. But you do go farther on branes with a higher c.

I am really starting to suspect that the velocity of light, as an absolute, has become an ideological bedrock, a belief or religion that physicists can cling to. The speed of light is sacred and is the only thing that is constant in a world where too many things change. I am sorry to have to disturb something that is so near and dear to so many of you. Yes, I understand that all of the evidence says that space-time is experimentally sound; ok, I got that. But FTL propulsion has never been tested, so we have zero experimental results. Besides, by creating a warp bubble, I can make sure that the warp bubble obeys its own space-time limitations. The information content inside of the bubble is hidden from space-time, so FTL propagation of information might be suspected, but can't be restricted by our space-time.

I am really interested in hearing a logical argument of why FTL propagation of information is absolutely impossible. Everything I've heard so far including the antetelelphone, doesn't even leave me with a nagging doubt. That's unusual.

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Dec. 30, 2009 @ 14:05 GMT
A spatial surface can stretch in a way so that points at some distance relative to a reference frame are moving faster than the local speed of light. There is one catch though, an event horizon occurs. This prevents a "return trip." A black hole is of this sort. You can think of spatial points sliding inwards at an ever greater speed so that beneath the horizon radius they are sliding in faster than light. However, the occurrence of an event horizon prevents any information inside this trapped region from being communicated to the outside.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Dec. 30, 2009 @ 16:23 GMT
I thought I would illustrate a type of FTL. This is not exactly a spaceship, in fact it is not something you exactly ride. Yet there is something faster than light, in a manner of speaking, it is the speed of mind. This last summer we observed the 40th anniversary of the first Apollo landings on the moon. I think it is probably fair to say that in the universe biologically active planets are fairly rare. Rarer still are such planets which bring about the evolution of intelligent life, who in turn build a machine that is capable of transporting representatives of their kind to another planetary body. I really think this is a very unique occurrence in the universe. For a flat infinite spatial universe anything which is not impossible is ultimately mandatory. Yet I think this is extremely exceptional. Further, we have extended our observations of the universe to the greatest distances imaginable, and can peer into the early universe. This speed of mind is not only a type of FTL, it is also a time machine of sorts. We have also looked in the opposite direction, into the smallest scales imaginable into the heart of the hadron, and hypotheses about what lies far beneath that. So a little piece of the universe has evolved the ability to observe the universe, and it is pushing the envelope further outwards and inwards with the conjecture that at some ultimate juncture the two, the cosmologically immense and the infinitesimally small quantum, should merge into one. Astounding! It is astounding to think that not only what we observe exists, what we think may exist, but that we are here to observe it and to think about it. Here we are, these frail pieces of meat made of polpeptides, lipids and polysaccharides, with the property of self awareness, who can think mathematics and music, who are composing the cosmic symphony by observing how the universe dances. Astounding, and this speed of mind is ultimately based on imagination ---- Imagine!

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe wrote on Dec. 30, 2009 @ 17:57 GMT
Lawrence: ty

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe wrote on Dec. 30, 2009 @ 18:33 GMT
I guess the physics community just needs time to catch up to the hyperdrive/imagination. But seriously, you should look at stretching a sheet of space-time along the c, speed of light, axis; you know, the axis you didn't think was there. Of course, this generates a continuum of space-times which obviously can't be right. For some reason, only a handful of space-times can exist without getting in each others way. I suspect you will end up with 3 or 4 space-times, each with a unique c and h. At least one of them is empty.

When you approach the multi-verse this way, you will find that the laws of nature automatically prevents time travel from occurring. The statement "information cannot propagate faster than the speed of light" subordinates to

"each space-time has its own information content which cannot propagate faster than the speed of light for that space-time; the relationship that maps information content between space-times is related to the force that spans the group of space-times."

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Dec. 30, 2009 @ 20:18 GMT
If something leaves the unvierse at one point and emerges at another point, no matter the particulars of how these two points are connected (wormholes, your c'>c bubble idea or ...) then there is a time ordering ambuguity. This leads to the "anti-telephone" issue Florin brought up. Further, if these two points are moved around in certain ways it can be converted to a time machine. This is no matter what mechanism you propose for connecting these two points.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe wrote on Dec. 30, 2009 @ 20:54 GMT
A time ordering ambiguity only occurs if we take c to be absolute and that information can propagate no faster than c. Why are you so certain that c is an absolute beyond this universe?

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Dec. 30, 2009 @ 23:34 GMT
Assume you have points x and y, where by some mechanism (any mechanism!) a particle can jump through and between them faster than light, you have a time ordering ambiguity. One observer can see the particle enter x and leave y, while another observer can witness the paricle leave y and then enter x. This is very canonically basic to the nature of special relativity. This is something very clear to mid-level undergraduate students. With a little more sophistication you can show that by moving one of the points around that you can get closed timelike curves. Closed timelike curves are a manifestation of what we might call a time machine.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe wrote on Dec. 31, 2009 @ 01:13 GMT
Lawrence:

Let's use a grenade because it more readily expresses causality. You stand at point X and I will stand at point Y. Let's give X and Y about 30 light seconds of separation. You pull the pin of the grenade and toss it into the X end of the portal. It comes out the Y end, instantaneously and explodes. Fortunately, I am safely inside of a bunker.

Now, I have a telescope that lets me see the other end, point X, that is 30 light seconds away. I see the explosion, then I look in the telescope, wait 30 seconds, and then watch you toss in a grenade.

Does this capture the essence of your wormhole argument?

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe wrote on Dec. 31, 2009 @ 01:25 GMT
By the way, college undergraduates can't be trusted to firmly disagree with their professor for two reasons. First, they want an A in the class. Second, they want their professor to think they're smart. I'm not sure if you teach presently, but try this experiment. Tell your students that bats and monkeys can mate and produce offspring, the flying bat-monkey. Tell your students they will be tested on this. On the next quiz, ask them: for 5 extra credit points, true or false, can bats and monkeys produce offspring, the flying bat monkey? How many of them will say true for 5 extra credit points? How about 25points? Will you get the truth for 0 extra credit points?

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe wrote on Dec. 31, 2009 @ 02:24 GMT
Dear Professor Crowell,

If there were a mechanism to create a wormhole or a star-gate, the two ends would be very unstable; they would teeter on the edge of violating conservation of energy. But let us say that you insist that the space-time model can handle it. So the grenade explodes on the Y end of the wormhole. I look through a telescope, and watch you toss in the grenade on the X...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Dec. 31, 2009 @ 15:32 GMT
I attach a figure which illustrates what an observer detects when two flash bulbs ignite at the same time. The light fronts meet at the midpoint between the bulbs as seen by an observer at rest. Yet for an observer which travels at some velocity v the light fronts reach a point other than the mid point. This is equivalent to saying the moving observer will see one bulb flash before the other, and the ordering of these events is frame dependent. This is related to how the occurrence of the two flashes can't be causally connected, where one bulb causes the flash of the other bulb.

A wormhole is a solution to the Einstein field equations. The solution is not stable under any perturbation. Anything which attempts to fly through it perturbs the wormhole so that it becomes two black holes. This can include a virtual fluctuation in the quantum vacuum. So moving the wormhole is problematic, and indeed its physical existence is problematic. Yet, let us assume there is some way of protecting it from such perturbations. This is a Star Trek related thread, and the show proposed something called Heisenberg compensators --- which can't exist, but it makes for interesting fiction. So in order to maintain the existence of something which can’t exist we posit some techno-magic which also can’t exist. In that case moving one of the openings of the wormhole can result in closed timelike curves or a “time machine.”

The energy issue with wormholes, and other solutions which result in FTL causality or time travel, is less to do with a violation of conservation of energy, but with how they violate an energy condition on the “time-time” component of the momentum energy tensor, called T^{00}, which in the averaged weak energy condition satisfies T^{00} >= 0. The energy is computed from

E = ∫d^3x e^0T_{00} or more generally E = ∫d^3x t^aT_{a0}

For t^a = Nn^a + N^a, N = lapse function, N^a = shift and n^a a normal vector on the spatial surface. If the energy condition is violated there is then a negative energy E < 0, which has no lower bound. This results in trouble with quantum field theory, because the wormhole is generated by some mass-energy source. This does not disprove the existence of wormholes or related solutions, but it brings up problems of a large magnitude and causes physicists to think these things can’t exist. Your idea is really a form of Krasnikov tube, which also violates these energy conditions.

Cheers LC

attachments: fig6_3.jpg

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry wrote on Dec. 31, 2009 @ 21:58 GMT
The flashes of the two bulbs can be causally connected in material reality but that is not what is observed. What is observed is EM radiation, an image of material reality and optical illusion.

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe wrote on Jan. 1, 2010 @ 03:50 GMT
Lawrence:

I looked at the attachment; I don't see how it supports your argument that FTL is impossible. Just because an observer sees the effect happen before the cause is irrelevant, I repeat, IRRELEVANT to whether or not time travel is possible. Go to an observatory and look at a star that is, let's say, a million light years away. It's like you're connected to that star by a hypothetical reel of film. You see the end of the reel; the star is still generating the reel/film/continuous flow of visual images. If you get in a starship and hyperdrive up to the star, you approach the star's present day. It's like fast forwarding the movie to present day on that star. When you reach the star, you are allowed to interact with the star and create causal events on it. But you cannot change anything on the hypothetical reel/film that extends back to the observatory.

You really need to step back and look at the GR and ask yourself if it makes sense. The mathematics might be telling you something that, upon thoughtful consideration, is really misleading. You are treating space-time like a movie film. You sit in the movie theatre, you understand that you cannot interact in real time with the characters in the movie, but you do not understand that you are allowed to contact the movie producers and try to change the latest filming. That's what FTL does, it lets you fast forward the "film" until you reach the real time filming.

I know what you're doing wrong. When you create a wormhole, you are, in effect, jumping from one frame of a movie on a reel, to another frame. But you are confusing this with time travel. Time travel means that you can change the past. What you're describing is simply moving along the film of a reel to reel. You can't change the movie film because it's already been created.

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Jan. 1, 2010 @ 04:37 GMT
To be honest the only thing I can conclude is that you are terribly confused about relativity. Unfortunately, if you should persist in these delusions there is no point in continuing this. It is becoming clear that you lack rudimentary knowledge of spacetime physics, but are at the same time driven by ideations from science fiction movels and movies.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry wrote on Jan. 1, 2010 @ 06:33 GMT
Relativity enables calculations and predictions of the EM illusion to be accurately conducted. But it is still an EM illusion and not material reality. The image may be seen spread over time to be observed by different observers at different positions in different orders. The observed event is not actually happening whenever it is observed.

The material universe and matter within it can be interacted with only at the 4th dimensional position where it actually physically exists not wherever-whenever it is seen. There can be no time travel because the matter only has one material existence, it does not have many existences in different times despite observation to the contrary.

There is no past or future or absolute present realm in material reality. Just a succession of patchwork subjective reality experiences formed from observation of EM radiation that has taken various lengths of time to arrive at the eye.IMO.

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe wrote on Jan. 1, 2010 @ 07:33 GMT
Lawrence:

Let me know when you can experimentally prove that FTL unavoidably leads to time machines. I have little confidence that you can tell the difference between an interactive present and an optical image that has been propagating at the speed of light for a million years. Just insert whatever you want into the equations, I'm sure the physics community will eventually figure it out.

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe wrote on Jan. 1, 2010 @ 07:48 GMT
Georgina,

It's quite clear that Lawrence has nothing to gain by differentiating between the "EM illusion" and a truly interactive and causal present. He makes his living by teaching the mathematics of GR, 0 to c. He doesn't have a shred of proof that FTL equals time machines; that is something that he just inserts into the argument. I told him I didn't want to use wormholes to acheive FTL, but he jumps from a "bubble" to a wormhole to a wormhole with adjustable endpoints (which is where he inserts time travel). I'm not some brown nosing undergraduate who just wants an A no matter what nonsense he's asked to believe. Maybe you can't just move the endpoint of a worm hole around any old way you please. Maybe that's why the physics community will labor under a mistake for another hundred years. It's becoming a waste of my time to discuss this with him.

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Jan. 1, 2010 @ 14:10 GMT
Roger Penrose wrote a readable book, “The Road to Reality,” which is on an advanced undergraduate to first year graduate level. I would advise reading it. I am not sure what you education background on physics is. This will give you a basic understanding of physics as it is currently understood. I would also advise that you watch Susskind’s lectures on relativity, where this link is to the first lecture. Leonard Susskind starts out on a very elementary basis and works up to fairly advanced material, but throughout he keeps this on a pretty accessible level. There are loads of insights here, and when I am writing I often have his lectures running in background, and when some matter of subtle interest comes up I will shift my attention.

I can only advise that people learn the real stuff. There are a fair number of people who post here who either appear to have little real understanding of physics, or who are examples of the adage, “A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.”

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein wrote on Jan. 1, 2010 @ 22:44 GMT
The last already approved post is by Jason Wolfe in August. His subsequent November post did not yet find approval. Instead to just join widespread skepticism towards time travel, warp drive, etc., I hope being able to add a premature answer to what I consider a key question:

To what extent do mathematics rule reality?

Some generalization are most likely not justified and must be excluded.

The claimed general covariance says coordinates do not a priori exist in nature. Some physicists seem to take this literally and arrive at negative energy, etc.

I doubt that it is reasonable to infer from claimed general invariance under differentiable coordinate transform that there are no absolute references in nature. Is it really reasonable to ignore the limitation of pressure to positive values if we are using an absolute reference? Aren't negative distance and measurement of negative already elapsed time unreal?

Even if it would be possible at all to build quantum computers, warp drives and the like, I did not have any chance to experience this in my lifetime. I can only hope that the possible failure of the search for SUSY by means of the LHC will soon give rise to more respect towards those who share my views on some very foundations.

As I indicated in topic 604, I found out that numbers must be considered like measures that relate to "one" rather than pebble-like points, and Vaihinger's "as if" is perhaps sufficient, simpler, more honest, and less confusing as compared with Cantor's naive set theory, AC, quantification of subspaces or sublocales, the distinction between open and closed subspaces, and all that.

Eckard

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe wrote on Jan. 1, 2010 @ 23:28 GMT
Dear FQXI Community,

I wouldn't waste everyone's time on this subject if I sincerely thought I was wrong. FTL propulsion, if it is possible at all, it most likely requires that some other universe's laws of motion be used; our space-time simply requires an unreasonable amount of energy (Alcubierre drive) to accomplish this task. There are criticisms that my approach to FTL propulsion deserves: (1) how do we find another space-time? (2) Why don't we notice other space-times around us? (3) How do you create a hyperspace/space-time bubble? (4) Information can appear to propagate faster than c. But the argument that ALL FTL propulsion methods amount to wormholes; and all wormholes, by the mathematics of space-time, are allowed to have endpoints that can be arbitrarily moved in time and space like a TARDIS propulsion system, is to throw the baby out with the bath water. There are too many assumptions within the FTL propulsion equals time travel argument, that we unnecessarily close the door to a physics that may yet be possible.

What happens if we say that FTL propulsion can only be possible under the following restrictions: (1) time travel is restricted and impossible; new time lines cannot be generated. (2) Energy must be conserved. (3) Other space-times and hyperspaces must be hidden in such a way as to agree with observations. At least this approach gives the physics community something to think about while we wait for a lucky break/new discovery/unlucky alien that crashes into the bad neighborhood, "Earth".

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Jan. 2, 2010 @ 00:42 GMT
General invariance principles mean that any frame bundle or coordinate system can be transformed into another one with the preservation of some quantitiy, In relativity this is the proper time, or the invariant momentum interval --- or mc^2. These are pretty benchmark aspects of modern physics.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe wrote on Jan. 2, 2010 @ 02:05 GMT
Dear Lawrence,

General invariance principles, Lorentz transformation, apply to a set of coordinate system transformations that preserve some quantity, the speed of light, c. These are all established mechanisms in GR, they have been confirmed in the laboratory. In the pursuit of an FTL propulsion theory, one that really can't be confirmed by experiment at this time, we have to be clever in how we proceed.

For a group of standard model particles and forces, I can't be entirely certain that I can just move them into another space-time/hyperspace. I suspect that they are already part of space-time. If I were trying to transplant a tree or a shrub, I have to dig up the dirt around it; I have to get all of the tangled roots that are part of the plant. I want to enclose the particles/spaceship within a mathematical closed surface/sphere. Inside of that closed surface/sphere is normal space-time. The surface itself will begin to remove the particles inside from the rest of space-time; E&M forces will eventually be blocked at the surface.

The surface itself will be made to interface with another space-time/hyperspace. The sphere itself will become a "particle" inside of that hyperspace. Relativity will still be enforced for the "particle"/sphere, but for a speed of light of hyperspace, c'. That means that we can still use gamma = 1/sqrt(1-v^2/c'^2), but the speed of light will be that for hyperspace, gamma. The flow of time will be judged according to gamma now, not c. Inside of the sphere, the spaceship or particles might simply observe a shroud of darkness. If the spaceship fires a projectile/missile at the inside surface of the sphere, that projectile will take some of the surface with it, and travel very rapidly through hyperspace in its own interface surface/bubble. If the bubble collapses, the particles/spaceship will still be propagating at some fraction of the speed of light, only without the bubble, the speed of light used is just c, not c'.

While the physicists decry that the particles/spaceship appeared to move FTL, the surface/bubble around the particles/spaceship prevented the actual witnessing of FTL. Since anything inside of the bubble is considered to be removed from space-time, invisible and non-interactive with the rest of the universe, then observations of FTL, based on when the spaceship left and where it arrived, are indirect. An indirect observation is sufficient to dodge General Relativity because space-time can only enforce its laws upon what it can see and what can interface with it.

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Jan. 2, 2010 @ 02:23 GMT
Jason. I am sure you would not waste everyone's times if you though you were wrong. The problem is that you think you are right, but wrong nonetheless.

There is a pernicious aspect to the question of closed timelike curves and faster than light propagation of information. It might be underlying physics quantum fluctuations are so enormous that everything breaks down. Suppose that underlying all of physics everything is utter chaos. This would presumably occur near the Planck scale. I attach again my image of a wormhole under an acceleration or boost. After the Cauchy horizon what I portray is the wormhole is transformed into two black holes. What I propose is there is some symmetry breaking system which prevents the system from becoming a time machine. Now this might seem to conform to your idea of FTL without time travel. It does sort of. Yet remember that the time aspect of a metric is multiplied by the speed of light squared. This is why general relativistic tests involving the curving of light around gravitating bodies is more readily observed than more subtle orbital perturbations which involve spatial corrections. Now suppose that this displacement of the wormhole opening is due to a quantum fluctuation. This would then correspond to some level at which quantum fluctuations can “jostle” particles around faster than light, for in this case the wormhole itself is a type of quantum instanton, but where a symmetry breaking mechanism prevents this from becoming a system which propagates information backwards in time. Then on a somewhat larger scale the spatial impact of this is apparent and the occurrence of large wormhole becomes blocked by the same symmetry breaking mechanism. This symmetry breaking mechanism is what generates certain bubbles in a superspace, say the 10-11 dimensional supergravity space or the corresponding 26 dimensional Lorentzian geometry of bosonic strings, which have a frozen in direction of time. The Cauchy horizon is then a sort of D-brane generating mechanism on a scale of energy below the Hagedorn temperature which valences the larger scale world from this sort of chaos.

I am not proposing this as any sort of truth, but as something to think about.

Cheers LC

attachments: fig11_3.gif

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry wrote on Jan. 2, 2010 @ 02:35 GMT
Lawrence with respect,

the real thing is fraught with paradoxes and nonsense. Belief in time travel is in my mind no better than belief in any other nonsense even though there is supporting mathematics and theory. The paradoxes show that the interpretation is incorrect when taken literally (or whatever the mathematical equivalent of that term is). The correct interpretation has to vary from that which is widely accepted by modern physics.

No matter how well acquainted one is with general and special relativity the paradoxes and nonsense will not disappear because the problems are built into the the models. You appear to be claiming that because relativity has proven to be mathematically and observationally irrefutable it therefore must be accepted as the literal truth. You also seem to think that someone not accepting that "truth" lacks sufficient education to comprehend the theory. That seems to be a kind of scientific fundamentalism which like religious fundamentalism can not accept that alternative interpretations might have any worth or possible validity.

I do not and will not accept that "literal" interpretation, as the consequences are unacceptable. Eternal pain, fear, suffering and atrocity. Every horror fixed in time forever. In my opinion the image of an event may continue to be observed but the material reality happens once within quaternion space and then no longer exists within quaternion space. The matter having changed and moved on to other configurations and events. That which is observed is not material reality itself but a subjective reality biological simulation formed from an electromagnetic image input. That experience is not the same as the external existential material reality.

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe wrote on Jan. 2, 2010 @ 02:58 GMT
Dear Lawrence,

If I thought I was wrong, I wouldn't bother pushing the idea. I think the conversation has merit and value, even if just to engage in a battle of minds and wills. Of course, I am right. :-)

From what your saying, it sounds like wormholes are some sort of entanglement between to black holes. When the wormhole is jostled, it collapses into two wormholes anyway.

My bubble idea is partly based on the following possibility. Our universe/space-time is a hyperspace object, something that exists in hyperspace. The Big Bang is therefor an explosion that occurred in hyperspace. Therefore, if there can be one hyper-space object, then why not two or many? We are told that our universe is expanding; I don't think they know if it expands at the speed of light. I presuppose that something like a tachyon causes space to remain excited, a hyperspace. If that tachyon is given off, then the space becomes standard space. Certainly nobody has proven this very speculative notion, but it gives me something to work with.

Next, without using any black holes, one simply uses tachyons to excite a region of space. That excited region of space becomes an object in hyperspace. Objects in hyperspace can move around a lot faster, but are still bound by their own speed of light, c'. Closed time-like curves are an attribute of wormholes and the manipulation of space-time.

I think you are visualizing FTL propulsion as a break away from the space-time continuum, like an off-ramp that separates from the main highway for a few miles, and eventually has an on-ramp that recombines with space-time. I think in your mind, you are visualizing FTL propulsion as just a temporary departure from a point in the past, that recombines with space-time at a point in the future; the way a coffee cup has a handle that is still connected to the cup at the top and the bottom, but is separate in the middle. To you, this still looks like a wormhole. While quantum particles might be able to trace out a world sheet that lasts for a few milliseconds, an FTL propulsion bubble may remain in hyperspace for such a long time that it truly becomes a separate universe unto itself. But how long an FTL propulsion bubble remains in hyperspace is probably not sufficient to force it to obey the laws of space-time.

If virtual particles can hide below the Planck constant, h-bar, to facilitate the mechanisms necessary to make E&M worm, then why isn't it possible to remove an object from space-time itself?

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe wrote on Jan. 2, 2010 @ 03:41 GMT
Ok Lawrence,

If even a bubble/interface FTL technique results in time-like curves, won't there be some kind of a symmetry of such curves?...one for inside of the bubble, which is isolated from the rest of space time, and one on the outside/surface, which is a hyperspace object that travels sublight speed in hyperspace, v

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Jan. 2, 2010 @ 16:28 GMT
I think that tachyons are held on M2-branes in black holes or shove off "to infinity" in the big bang. This probably provides a form of chronology protection. The string world sheet, or in general the n+1 dimensional world sheet of a Dn-brane valences the world from this sort of chaos. As such the occurrence of closed timelike curves or propagators which are faster than light is shielded from the world and don't exist on a large scale. It is similar to statistical mechanics, where a system with a small number of modes, or atoms, can exhibit spontaneous entropy reversing processes. Yet these become highly improbable the larger the system examined. In much the same way I think that FTL, wormholes and closed timelike curves are almost infinitesimally probable on a macroscopic scale.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe wrote on Jan. 2, 2010 @ 20:36 GMT
Dear Lawrence,

We're both speculating about how FTL phenomena will manifest in the physical universe. It sounds like you are saying that FTL must manifest as closed time-like loops. To me, closed time like loops sound like a non-divisable unit particle of a time-machine/wormhole, a conditioned response you have when FTL is discussed. If quantum mechanics appears to spread its eigenvalues over time, it's not because it is dangling a time machine in front of us, it's because the universe, quantum mechanics has the ability to keep its options open until the last minute. There is not backwards causality at the same location. If an experiment suggests that there is, it only looks that way. You can't build a time machine out of it. The best you can do is build an ambiguity machine or a hedge machine.

A system that incorporates FTL particles/forces/tachyons, at best, you might get to see the effect before the cause, but you can NEVER string those together to create a time machine. FTL phenomena probably has to be removed from view by the universe, and held in some ambiguity field, or more likely, the mechanisms are hidden from view. FTL propulsion technology will probably give you cloaking and even shielding. It might make you think the effect happened before the cause, but you can NEVER EVER EVER undo the cause just by seeing the effect first.

report post as inappropriate

Florin Moldoveanu wrote on Jan. 2, 2010 @ 20:55 GMT
Dear Jason,

You say:

“It might make you think the effect happened before the cause, but you can NEVER EVER EVER undo the cause just by seeing the effect first.”

This is a variant to the so-called Novikov consistency principle. What it entails is the loss of free will, or imposing unphysical GLOBAL constraints on the LOCAL physics.

FTL is simply a dead horse. Mathematically, inertial frames have only 2 transformations possible: Galilean transformation (with separate space and time and no speed limit) or Lorenz transformations (with a speed limit). We live in a universe with either no maximum speed limit, or with a speed limit.

The validity of Maxwell’s equations demands the second solution, end of story.

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Jan. 2, 2010 @ 21:44 GMT
This constrain by Novikov is a problem which Kip Thorne raised. He proposed that mechanics was such that closed timelike curves could never exist, by imposing various conditions on systems. Of course with classical dynamics there are integrable systems which do have closed orbits, so they recurr at a point in space, or chaotic ones which comes within an epsilon of every point on the energy torus, including the initial point. If there is some time flipping or reversing property, then closed timelike curves are inevitable.

The issue of faster than light travel, and equally time travel, did come up from Thorne's work on wormholes. This stimulated interest in a range of similar ideas, from the Alcubierre warpdrive to Krasnikov tubes. These however all run into a set of problems which introduces far greater difficulties. The violations of the Hawking-Penrose energy conditions makes quantum mechanics inconsistent. This also leads to time travel (closed timelike curves) which leads to logical or causality contradictions.

So instead of Novikov's constraints it is clear that the local principles of Lorentz invariance on any local frame holds on any physical manifold in general. What is not clear in physics is exactly how this chronology protection rule is enforced. So there is an interestin in looking at these strange solutions which give faster than light and time travel. Yet the interest is not so much in getting NASA to build up a warp capable spacecraft, but rather in trying to understand something about the foundations of physics.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe wrote on Jan. 2, 2010 @ 23:42 GMT
Dear Florin,

You said: "FTL is simply a dead horse. Mathematically, inertial frames have only 2 transformations possible: Galilean transformation (with separate space and time and no speed limit) or Lorenz transformations (with a speed limit)."

Perhaps you missed it. For FTL to work, you have to remove the spaceship from space-time entirely. If I remove it from space-time, then a Lorentz transformation can't be performed. Using the train experiment when deriving special relativity, the passenger aboard the train looks out and sees nothing, darkness. The observer watching the train go by sees it vanish; no comparison can be made. It's not a dead horse because the Lorentz bullet you shot it with doesn't work for objects that vanish from space-time.

Dear Lawrence,

I acknowledge that you don't believe that wormholes are stable. I think you are pointing out that quantum mechanics becomes inconsistent when Alcubierre warpdrives and Krasnikov tubes are used. That underscores all the more reason to isolate the two universes from each other, space-time and hyperspace. You point out a reasonable issue that we don't know how chronology is enforced. A causal event might be one particle transmuting into another such that forward transmutation is not unusual, but the reverse almost never occurs naturally. Once you take an Avagadros number of these mostly one way interactions, then the forward flow of time is unavoidable. The reason you can't get time travel is because you are faced with impossible probabilities that everything in the universe just reverses itself for no apparent reason. But if you have tachyonic forces and particles racing around, transmitting information, you get to act before the rest of space-time can do anything. However, you are still faced with impossible probabilities when you try to reverse an Avagadros number of one-way reactions.

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe wrote on Jan. 3, 2010 @ 00:08 GMT
Lawrence,

For a volume of isolated space-time, with a spaceship inside, that is returning to our universe/space-time, are you suggesting that the quantum mechanics and/or time, does not match up upon arrival?

I can understand your concerns about the quantum mechanics of hyperspace. I can also understand your concerns, which you haven't raised yet, about a bubble that has space-time in the middle and hyperspace on the outer surface. But quantum mechanics by it's unpredictable nature, lots of eigenvalues, has flexibility already built into it.

report post as inappropriate

Florin Moldoveanu wrote on Jan. 3, 2010 @ 00:13 GMT
Dear Jason,

Nice try, but it is still a dead horse. Suppose one invents a FTL (tachyonic) way of travel by whatever means, for example by removing the spaceship from spacetime. If Alice and Bob can be connected by light signals and by this hypothetical novel tachyonic way of sending information (say by carrying computer messages on a memory stick), then the anti-telephone can be realized. Avoiding paradoxes leads to loss of free will for Alice and Bob.

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe wrote on Jan. 3, 2010 @ 00:30 GMT
Dear Florin,

The anti-telephone is puddle of bath water and babies. We all agree that time machines violate causality and generate paradoxes. How can I say this nicely? The physics community needs a less clunky and more elegant way to explain why something is impossible without making everything impossible. In other words, you, Lawrence, and all the other physicists are throwing everything you can think of, kitchen sink included, at a paradox in order to make sure that nature won't make a mistake. Don't worry about nature; she knows what she's doing. The universe knows what it's doing and only requires one reason to make paradoxes impossible, not fifty thousand reasons and everything anyone can think of. Every time you make something impossible, in order to avoid a paradox, you remove from engineering's grasp what is ultimately achievable.

Let's play a little game. I can't think of a more intellectually challenging game. Can you explain why a paradox is impossible in a way that maximized what is ultimately possible? Somewhere between, "sorry, nothing is possible" and fifty zillion rules of thumb, you will find an elegant and abstract naturally occurring limitation. But then that is the edge of the envelope and you are ultimately pushing it. Do you follow what I'm saying?

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Jan. 3, 2010 @ 02:12 GMT
Your idea of diving into another spacetime is a bit like diving into a swimming pool, swimming around and returning home without ever actually getting out of the pool. You have an entry point into the pool and an exit point, no matter how you look at it --- unless you drown I suppose. This means you have two points in our spacetime, entry and exit, which contain the same information. From the perspective of an observer who stays in our spacetime information is communicated faster than light.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe wrote on Jan. 3, 2010 @ 03:34 GMT
Dear Lawrence,

Thank you for finally acknowledging what I'm saying. That is something that I had considered; how is the information content of the spaceship entering hyperspace and then returning, handled?

But let me ask you something. Why does the universe really care if information some how got propagated faster than light? So what? FTL propulsion can't force the universe back into an earlier point in time; that's not the mechanism. The mechanism just moves the information content to a storage place, a hyperspace particle, one that can move with a velocity v < c', where c' >> c.

The reason information content cannot propagate faster than the speed of light is because there isn't anything that can transmit information FTL. If there were, if hyperspace existed, then what paradox would be created?

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe wrote on Jan. 3, 2010 @ 07:24 GMT
So if there was some process to remove an object from space-time, into hyperspace, could we describe experiments? Let's pretend that we had a small sample of an atomic material with chromo-tachyon doped cores. When the material is bombarded by high velocity electrons, they vanish. Actually, they reappear several miles away, but nobody was there to notice it. Below a certain kinetic energy, the electrons do not interact with the chromo-tachyon doped material. What other kinds of experiments might we run?

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Jan. 3, 2010 @ 13:51 GMT
Yes nature does care how information is communicated. In a basic course on relativity one of the problems you work in an assignment is to show that there are timelike world lines, null world lines and spacelike worldlines, and these can't be transformed into each other by spacetime transformations. So there does not exist a transformation which can map a timelike path into a null or spacelike path. Spacelike world lines are easily shown to result in a time ordering ambiguity, where cause and effect can be time ordered either way. Spacelike paths are thus regarded as unphysical. Now this is a result for flat spacetime, which is flat globally. You then switch to local analysis, where flat spacetime is something which holds approximately on a very small patch in a curved spacetime. In this case you do find there are strange curved spacetimes with closed timelike curves and multiply connected regions which propagate information on a spacelike interval. So there is a disconnect between local and global principles. What seems to rescue the situation is quantum mechanics. For these strange spacetimes violate the averaged weak energy condition T^{00} >= 0, and the quantum field source for the spacetime field then has no lower bound, or is no regulated properly. As such the quantum field can fall down an endless ladder of states and emit an infinite amount of energy. That energy emitted can cause the spacetime to fluctuate violently as well to probably destroy the solution.

Remember that the Einstein field equation is a general form of the Newtonian field equation of gravity, or the Poisson equation

∂^i∂_iΦ = 4πGρ,

where Φ is a gravitational potential field and ρ is a mass density field. Interestingly if the density ρ is negative the field is repulsive (anti-gravity), where the corresponding violation of the energy condition in the Einstein field equations predicts that geodesics diverge away or defocus in a spacetime sense. Gravity normally operates to focus geodesics together. Negative energy conditions introduce such enormous pathologies in physics, particularly quantum mechanics, that these types of solutions are not regarded as physical. As yet there is no general cosmic censorship or chronology theorem, where these as yet are still hypotheses or conjectures, but what we can understand so far pretty clearly suggests that such a theorem does exist. If it does exist then the causality requirements of a globally flat spacetime hold for any curved manifold as well, which means global and local causal principles are equivalent.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe wrote on Jan. 3, 2010 @ 19:57 GMT
When I press the issue of FTL plausibility, you appear to retreat to the light cone concept, the hazards of violating the weak energy condition, and then admit that there is no cosmic censorship or chronology theorem, but there should be. Since I'm not able to crack the mechanistic nature of how space-time works to produce laws of motion, I will accept that the space-time structure is nature's...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe wrote on Jan. 3, 2010 @ 20:03 GMT
Dear Lawrence,

There may be a way to save the quantum field's "no lower limit" situation. If c = 1/sqrt (permittivity * permeability), then a higher speed of light would results in an energy reduction of FTL light. In other words, FTL light transmits less energy then electromagnetic light.

But don't worry, I can still get a Big Bang to occur in hyperspace.

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Jan. 4, 2010 @ 13:02 GMT
If you have two points x and y in our spacetime and a particle can enter x and reemerge at y faster than light you are progagating information faster than light. We might think of the mechanism connecting x and y as a black box, which conceals any possible mechanism one might propose. The problem remains, you have causal connections faster than light in our universe or spacetime, no matter what you try to configure as underlying the black box.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe wrote on Jan. 4, 2010 @ 17:17 GMT
I like the idea of a black box. Sadly, we don't have access to such a technology. Yes, we would have causal connections faster than light. But that would be a good thing, not a bad thing. If we were to observe such a phenomena, it would open up a very interesting new field of physics.

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe wrote on Jan. 4, 2010 @ 17:35 GMT
Dear Lawrence,

You said: "...As such the quantum field can fall down an endless ladder of states and emit an infinite amount of energy. "

This problem can be ameliorated if you raise the speed of light, for a hyperspace region, to c' >> c. Since c^2 = 1/(permittivity * permeability), and the Poynting vector, S = E X B, is an energy flux, that energy flux can be rewritten as S = (permittivity * permeability)(D X H). If permittivity * permeability get arbitrarily small, you will curtail whatever endless ladder of energy states you might have. It doesn't exactly conserve energy, but it does introduce some stability to the multi-verse/hyper-space. In addition, this will also make it very difficult to transmit information FTL via an E&M field because such a field propagates with very little, if any, electromagnetic energy.

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Jan. 4, 2010 @ 18:22 GMT
Your idea of a c' >> c in some other spacetime is just one example of something which can make up the black box.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe wrote on Jan. 4, 2010 @ 19:01 GMT
Certainly it is one way to implement the black box of FTL propulsion. The Alcubierre drive is energetically unfeasible. Moving a tiny universe, the FTL spaceship, around inside of hyperspace is really the only plausible way to accomplish an FTL propulsion system using a modest amount of energy. I can't think of another to accomplish FTL propulsion. Charging up the spaceship with tachyons is just a variation of the same idea.

You had mentioned that strange space-times lead to violations of the weak energy condition resulting in a bottomless pit of negative energy. I was offering a solution to this problem by pinching of the amount of energy that can be transmitted using electro-magnetic fields. If the speed of light in hyperspace is high enough, then this "endless ladder of states that can emit an infinite amount of energy" can be brought under control. Am I communicating this idea clearly?

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe wrote on Jan. 4, 2010 @ 21:25 GMT
Dear Lawrence,

Unless you can dissuade me from this madness, I intend to develop a theory, set of engineering practices, and technology of FTL hyper-drive propulsion. I have quite a bit of it worked out already. But don't worry, I will only only leave one or two tachyonic bullet holes in General Relativity.

Don't worry, it will be ok!

report post as inappropriate

Ray Munroe wrote on Jan. 4, 2010 @ 21:31 GMT
Dear Jason,

Are there any problems if those tachyons are related to Higgs?

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe wrote on Jan. 4, 2010 @ 22:02 GMT
Hi Ray,

I am assuming that the Higgs field (the mass giving field) is part of the space-time brane/universe/structure. I want to use tachyons as that which excites space(-time) through the range of faster space-times/hyperspaces. For example, let's take a unit volume of space-time; we'll call it c1-space. Add a tachyon, and it becomes a c2-space-time with a velocity of light c_2 = 2c. I suspect most of these hyper-spaces are unstable. But I suspect there is a stable excited space-time/hyperspace for some value of c_i; maybe i=50,000 as a guess. The suggestion is that the tachyon carries something that is similar to energy, but is not energy. Yes, I am borrowing the electron excitation by a photon mechanism.

In answer to your question, each space-time has it's own Higgs field. Will they ever detect a Higgs particle? I doubt it. I don't believe my theory is conducive to a Higgs particle.

report post as inappropriate

Ray Munroe wrote on Jan. 4, 2010 @ 22:19 GMT
Dear Jason,

I am not sure how my ideas and Higgs interact, but I suspect the 'Higgs' is a Spacetime 'lattice defect' - in other words - it is the projection of an unstable tachyon from hyperspace onto spacetime. If these particles of hyperspace origin can influence spacetime, then there may be hope for your spacetime spaceship to project itself into hyperspace. I still think there are multiple potential problems for this technology, and you may have just scratched the surface of problems, but you should give it your best shot regardless of the criticism. Time, efforts and experiments will reinforce which laws of nature can be bent or broken vs. which truly are LAWS.

Have Fun!

Ra

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe wrote on Jan. 4, 2010 @ 22:48 GMT
Hi Ray,

I understand the idea of an unstable hyperspace. But you mention an unstable tachyon. In what way is a tachyon unstable? Does it decay into something that makes it stable?

I am using the tachyons as part of a mechanism to convert a unit volume of space-time into a unit volume of hyperspace. I anticipate some interesting effects.

Whether I am on the right track or doing imaginary physics, there is still lots of opportunity to understand the physics more deeply. Furthermore, the drifting of physics away from any kind of common sense is an indication of how much we don't understand it. I discovered an interesting process for exploring physics ideas many months ago. Over and over, I would come up with the fantastic and magical understanding of physics; but then, my doubts would start to tear it apart, revealing new insight. The broken pieces would sit around for awhile until another wave of "magical thinking" came along. It's a cyclical process for me. As evidence that this approach is productive, I've been able to force a distinction between (1) observing the effect before the cause, and (2) assuming the existence of a mechanism that makes the whole universe rewind. Number (1) has to occur for FTL phenomena, but you can't do anything about it. However, (2) has been shown to be impossible.

report post as inappropriate

Ray Munroe wrote on Jan. 4, 2010 @ 22:59 GMT
Dear Jason,

My tachyons are wierd. The concept of 'scalar fermions' is illogical. These particles have properly defined intrinsic spin in 8-dimensions, but not in the 4-dimensions of spacetime. I don't know what that translates to, but I'm currently suspecting Higgses.

Have Fun!

Ray

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe wrote on Jan. 4, 2010 @ 23:08 GMT
Dear Ray,

Can an 8D scalar fermion transmute a 4D X (something) into a 4D Y (something else)?

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe wrote on Jan. 4, 2010 @ 23:29 GMT
Better yet! It's a scalar fermion in 8D. Can it be a particle, with spin, that exists simultaneously in two 4D spaces? In other words, let's pretend it is a particle that exists in space-time and in hyperspace, simultaneously. If something in hyperspace interacts with it, I can see the result of the interaction to it in space-time. Can it be used to interface between two different 4D space-times?

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Jan. 4, 2010 @ 23:35 GMT
Tachyons really do not help you. They can’t exist as free particles which carry information around. The Regge poles for particles or strings is

J

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Jan. 4, 2010 @ 23:37 GMT
I forgot about the carrot symbol problem

Tachyons really do not help you. They can’t exist as free particles which carry information around. The Regge poles for particles or strings is

J le α’M^2 + 1,le = less than or equal

And the lowest element at J = 0 gives an imaginary mass M = i/sqrt{α’}. Anything with an imaginary mass or energy simply can’t be physically real. This is the tachyon state, which are eliminated by various means. I think they form condensates in black hole quantum singularities or are removed to ∞ by a topology change in an inflationary process which maps a 3-sphere internal to a virtual wormhole to R^3. There is a stereographic type of projection which shoves them off to “infinity.” They do not contribute to realistic physics and become constraints on the number of degrees of freedom in the system.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe wrote on Jan. 5, 2010 @ 00:06 GMT
So a tachyon contributes an imaginary quantity of mass/energy. At best, all I can do is combine it with something else that has an imaginary mass/energy to yield a -mass or -energy.

Part of my theory has to do with treating space-time itself as an object that can be changed/transmuted into another kind of space-time. I don't know if anybody has tried that problem. If a unit volume of space-time could somehow be considered to be a neg-mass/neg-energy, then my idea to convert one kind of space-time into another using a tachyon might make sense.

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Jan. 5, 2010 @ 01:21 GMT
A spacetime with a negative energy puts you into the problem of unbounded QM, or a quantum gravity which is not bounded below. Yuck and gag, that is one of the standard problems with quantum gravity, not a solution to it.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe wrote on Jan. 5, 2010 @ 01:48 GMT
OK, so adding a tachyon to space-time to make it a different space-time has the complication that we've been discussing. Please refresh my memory. I thought that the Higgs field was the lowest energy state; everything above that is considered a tachyon field. This of course raises the question, does the Higgs field exists everywhere in space-time, in anti-DeSitter space? Can the Higgs field be considered either the same as, or a component of anti-Desitter space/space time?

What I'm trying to do is figure out how to convert/transmute a volume of space-time into a volume of some other kind of space-time.

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Jan. 5, 2010 @ 12:43 GMT
The Higgs vacuum exists everywhere, as the does the vacuum state of every other field.

A quantum fluctuation that is sufficiently large, or polarized near the singulatiry of a black hole, can pinch off a bit of spacetime and the vacuum energy around it. This pinched off piece can inflate into another cosmology. This is descriptively an aspect of the so called multiverse. There exists a vast number of such possible cosmologies. There are according to Andrei Linde and Vitaly Vanchurin How many universes are in the multiverse? there may be 10^{10^{77}} cosmologies with different geometrical structures.

This will not result in an FTL system. For one thing these cosmologies exist in a 26 dimensional bosonic string, or equivalently a 10 dimensional supersymmetric, Lorentzian spacetime. The speed of light as a conversion factor between spacial distance and time intervals is fixed throughout. Further, there are horizons which obstruct the ability to pinch off into some new cosmologies, enter it and then return. So returning is problematic, for you would not return but get lost in those vast numbers of cosmologies in superspace. You would be truly lost in space.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe wrote on Jan. 5, 2010 @ 17:13 GMT
Tachyonic Higgs field (T-Higgs field) exists around a seed piece of hyper-space material. This field can be construed as a hyper-space space-time with c' >> c.

Higgs Field Exciter (HFE) is a tachyon generator that is used to grow the T-Higgs field. Since the T-Higgs field cannot displace the standard-Higgs field (the Higgs vacuum) around atomically constructed material, the T-Higgs field will flow around physical matter, but not permeate it. The T-Higgs field seeks to minimize its surface area; consequently, it will form a thin coat over the surface of the space-ship.

FTL propulsion engine- when kinetic energy is properly mixed with the T-field, the thrust is directed into hyperspace. Action/reaction forces will cause the T-field mixer to be accelerated in the opposite direction. If the space-ship is completely isolated from standard space-time, other than its own, it becomes a Higgs field core within a hyper-space macro-particle. Action-reaction forces will result in a velocity v of the spaceship; v represents the velocity the spaceship would reach without the FTL propulsion system. With the FTL propulsion system, the spaceship will reach a velocity v' = v (c'/c).

The half life of an excited T-Higgs field is about 3 minutes. If the spaceship is traveling at some velocity v' > c, the faster than light condition with respect to standard space-time, a T-Higgs field failure will not be catastrophic. T-Higgs field failure or diengagement will return the spaceship to standard space-time with a velocity v = v' (c/c').

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe wrote on Jan. 5, 2010 @ 20:23 GMT
Manipulating the Higgs field is the closest thing I have to manipulating space (-time) itself without warping space. Warping space takes unavailable quantities of energy. Here is my recipe:

1. Assume the existence of a hyperspace.

2. Make the Higgs field the manipulatable part of space.

3. Acquire a small sample of hyperspace material. Around that hyperspace material will be a small amount of hyperspace (tachyonic-Higgs field).

4. Bombard the hyperspace material with tachyons. If I can think of something better to call this field, I'll call it that.

5. The standard Higgs vacuum around the hyperspace material will begin to convert into a tachyonic-Higgs field (T-Higgs field).

6. When this T-Higgs field completely encapsulates a small region of space-time, containing the spaceship, and stabilizes, it will be possible to remove the spaceship from space-time.

Other then skepticism, did everyone understand what I'm doing?

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Jan. 6, 2010 @ 01:47 GMT
The lifetime if Higgs particles is about 10^{-26} seconds. As you go to higher energy the lifetime of fields becomes smaller.

Look, you are spinning off various ideas without much real foundational understanding. It is becoming a bit troublesome to pick through your ideas here.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe wrote on Jan. 6, 2010 @ 03:28 GMT
Please forgive my enthusiasm/stubbornness when it comes to FTL propulsion. It has become kind of a fun puzzle/obsession to me. Even if we can't build it, don't have the materials or access to the laws of physics, I would really like to figure out what would have to exist for FTL propulsion to exist.

The Higgs field provides the mass giving mechanism for W+ and W-, weak force, particles. I decided to lump all mass giving mechanisms into the Higgs field. Since E = mc^2, energy, c, and mass are all tied into the same object that we observe as space-time, I am assuming that the Higgs field implements space-time. Frame dragging suggests to me that the Higgs field can be treated like a fluid.

OK, I admit it! I am applying some imagination and science fiction to the engineering involved in constructing a hyper-drive. Every time you balk at what I'm doing, like the very brief tachyon particle lifetime, I have to come up with something else.

I couldn't find the conversation where we discussed the resemblance of stacked Schwartchild spheres; the spheres had energy levels. The lowest energy level gave us space-time. The higher levels were tachyonic and discarded. You and Ray suggested that we could ignore them. I decided we could still use the idea. But then that leaves us with the conundrum of how do you make a volume of space-time transition into a volume of hyperspace? If a tachyon field doesn't work, I will find something else to make it work.

If I can surround and completely encapsulate the outside of the spaceship with this generated/transmuted layer of hyperspace, I expect it to allow my spaceship to masqeurade as a hyperspace object, subject to the laws of motion of hyperspace.

Sorry, I got a little carried away back there. If you don't like where this conversation is going, I understand.

report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein wrote on Jan. 6, 2010 @ 11:01 GMT
I quote LC:"General invariance principles mean that any frame bundle or coordinate system can be transformed into another one with the preservation of some quantitiy, In relativity this is the proper time,..."

Proper time is explained as a measured time. Doesn't this compellingly imply that in reality, proper time is restricted to the past and must not be invariant against a shift?

Who objects against absolute limits in reality? Distance, delay, energy, probability, the number of items, etc. cannot there reasonably get less than zero, velocity has the upper limit c. According to the word uni there is by definition just one universe.

I am just curious about the logarithm of a negative argument. Would it have a physical meaning?

Eckard

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe wrote on Jan. 6, 2010 @ 11:44 GMT
Dear Eckard,

You said: "Proper time is explained as a measured time. Doesn't this compellingly imply that in reality, proper time is restricted to the past and must not be invariant against a shift?"

Proper time is restricted to the past? I'm not sure I follow you.

The logarithm of a negative number? Let's call it the Blumschein number. Does it have physical meaning? I don't know, you tell me. It's named in your honor.

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Jan. 6, 2010 @ 14:09 GMT
Jason,

It is true that you keep throwing up new conjectures which can be shot down. In dealing with creationists I say it is like shooting ducks in a shooting gallery; they are easy to shoot down, but they keep popping back up. At a certain point hitting tennis balls back from a machine which keeps serving them gets a bit old.

Eckard,

The problem is that you are imposing metaphysical ideas to cast a judgment against a physical theory. This is what causes people to have such problems with quantum mechanics. Progress in the foundations of physics tends to modify our sense of what is meant by causality, trajectories, time and so forth. These modifications are usually the removal of some obstruction or “excess baggage” that prevents progress. The notion of time you insist upon amounts to the re-imposition of an obstruction to physical understanding.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe wrote on Jan. 6, 2010 @ 21:24 GMT
Lawrence,

If you're refering to the log(-number) stuff, I was just teasing Eckard. If your referring to FTL phenomena equates to time travel, then your just not using common sense.

Example: You are looking at an FTL spaceship through a telescope that is 30 light seconds away. It jumps to hyperspace and stops right next to you. You get to watch the image that is 30 light seconds away for about 30 seconds before it disappears. You are shocked that you see that image, but also the same spaceship that is right in front of you. You will get strange observations like this, but you won't get wormholes or time traveling.

I figure that the reason you cling to c so tightly is because, if you introduce a second velocity of light, c', 26 bosonic dimensions will come crashing down, destroying 50 years of hard work.

report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein wrote on Jan. 6, 2010 @ 23:50 GMT
Yes, Jason, proper time is explained as a measured time. Isn't it? Nobody can tell you in advance what he measured next year. I stumbled about this fact when I dealt with real time spectral analysis within our ear. It is definitely a detour to integrate over time from minus infinity to plus infinity if future signals are definitely not available. Integration adds influences, and there are...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe wrote on Jan. 7, 2010 @ 01:11 GMT
Eckard,

You said,"I consider success in practice a good criterion of correctness. " Certainly, that is a reasonble assumption.

You sound like another one who believes that FTL = time travel. Can you please explain a possible mechanism for how the whole universe rewinds itself, like a VCR or cassette tape, if and FTL event occurs? I can describe a possible mechansim for explaining how FTL could occur, but I don't use black holes or worm holes. Of course, there can be these pesky images caused by light that is still emitting from something that has long since moved away...

How many of the stars you see in the sky are still there, now?

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Jan. 7, 2010 @ 02:28 GMT
Jason,

I must implore that if you have a passion to understand physics, and clearly if FTL should turn out to be real you do need to be clairvoyant in the subject, then you need to learn the real stuff. In reading your posts it is pretty clear you don't have a serious grasp on advanced physics, though you seem to have some familiarity with basic stuff. You need to take the time and effort to study the real physics out there. Put all this FTL stuff on a shelf, at least for a while, and attend courses on these subjects.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe wrote on Jan. 7, 2010 @ 10:00 GMT
Dear Lawrence,

I think I need a break from the physics. Thank you for your thoughts...

report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein wrote on Jan. 7, 2010 @ 13:15 GMT
Jason,

A main reason for me to trust in c is its relation to electric and magnetic fields: 1/c^2=epsilon_0 times my_0. Moreover, didn't we have to expect an application if Nimtz's claim was correct? Well, sometimes it is difficult to benefit from correct insight, as in case of nuclear fusion, which was proven possible with the H-bomb.

I wonder how self-confident you are speaking of the universe and its properties. Isn't our tangible knowledge of far remote objects still rather incomplete? Are you sure that the "whole" universe rewinds itself? And if so, may we benefit from such idea? Consider ms stupid: I am not even sure that singularities are more than mathematical ideals that do not have physical correlates. Aren't they rather just clever approximations of reality? I like the function sinc(x) because it is not singular at x=0.

My skepticism is based on getting aware of seemingly minute nuances in meaning.

A gauge is scaled with numbers attributed to points on the real line. However, the meaning is quite a little bit different. Every number does not belong to a point on the line but to the distance between this point and the reference point zero.

I do not deny that future time is reasonable on the level of abstraction. However, it is undeniable that future processes are not yet reality.

I do not belittle that negative and imaginary numbers, harmonic functions, and complex calculus were and still are utmost important in science and technology. However, does this make e.g. a sine function that is thought to extends from minus infinity to plus infinity something we can find in reality?

I do not see old rules outdated: Anything flows. Trees do not grow into the space. Life is finite. Nobody can evade aging. Only the name geo is inappropriate in Euclid's. In reality, the whole is alway larger than its parts.

My comment: The map is not the territory. Perhaps, a considerable part of modern physics is just unjustified speculation. Let's clarify whether my concrete hints concerning apparent symmetry are correct.

Eckard

report post as inappropriate

Ray Munroe wrote on Jan. 7, 2010 @ 13:19 GMT
Dear Jason,

There was a time in my life (at the U. of Texas - HOOK 'EM HORNS!) when professors 'forced' physics on me so much that I hated it. I tolerated it to a point because I wanted an advanced degree. Finally, I swore off physics and quit grad school. But when other people weren't forcing their expectations on me, I learned that I do love physics as a hobby. I started to make progress on my Quantum Statistical Grand Unified Theory, and decided it was time to go back to graduate school. The second time in grad school (at Florida State U.), I wanted to learn everything and stayed near the top of every class - no one was forcing me, I loved it!

Sometimes, the best thing you can do is take a break from beating your head against the same brick wall. I still like the expression "Never say never", but it will be tricky to develop an FTL drive because GR and the 2nd Law of Thermo seem defiant against it. If I understood multiple dimensions better, I would use that knowledge to help inspire you. Perhaps we both need to wait for another breakthrough.

Have Fun!

Ray

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Jan. 7, 2010 @ 15:54 GMT
If you want to understand these matter, such as why FTL is not likely, you have to do the serious work. I disagree that this is uncreative. It differs from the arts only in being more tightly constrained by what nature tells you.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe wrote on Jan. 7, 2010 @ 18:14 GMT
Eckard,

You said, "Are you sure that the "whole" universe rewinds itself?" The whole universe CAN'T rewind itself. No such mechanism exists. Therefore time travel is IMPOSSIBLE. However, FTL can still exist WITHOUT causing time travel.

Lawrence,

You said, "If you want to understand these matter, such as why FTL is not likely, you have to do the serious work." Why would I want to learn why FTL is unlikely? What is the benefit to that? If it's unlikely, but not impossible, why wouldn't it be worth someone's time to figure out how it might actually work or be possible? But if the physics community's attitude towards FTL is: it's impossible, let's figure out why it's impossible, you'll never figure it out. In fact, American's are not supposed to think like that.

Ray,

You said, "..but it will be tricky to develop an FTL drive because GR and the 2nd Law of Thermo seem defiant against it. " Thermo prevents time travel; since time travel DOES NOT EQUAL faster than light phenomena, than it's ok.

How can FTL propulsion be possible without damaging GR? You won't understand, but it's like a Russian doll. You have to nest a set of space-times with the higher velocity space-times inside of the outer standard space-time.

http://www.monster-munch.com/images/StorageRussia
nDoll.jpg

If you set up the multi-verse this way, you can beat Lawrence, Einstein and GR.

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe wrote on Jan. 7, 2010 @ 22:21 GMT
Ray,

If you nest space-times, the outer most 4piR^2 surface represents our observable space-time. The radius R is actually a 1/c term; so the larger c gets, the smaller the radius of the space-time (hyper-space) surface under consideration. This mathematical model of nested space-times just gives a way to insert FTL capability into every point in space. Inside of the event horizon of a black hole, there would be another surface or just hyperspace, where hyperspace represents all space with a velocity of light c' > c.

Coupling between surfaces of each space-time is an endeavor I haven't gotten to yet. This model would make it possible to generate a hyper-space field around your spaceship, making it possible to be removed from our space-time/universe.

I have no real evidence for this, but it would provide a nice theoretical framework for an FTL propulsion physics theory. I'm sure Lawrence will hate it.

report post as inappropriate

Ray Munroe wrote on Jan. 7, 2010 @ 22:52 GMT
Dear Jason,

If you can even make such a thing, it would be a weakly-coupled quantum event- perhaps based on an exotic particle or field such as the Higgs or WIMP-Graviton - anything else would occur regularly enough to destroy/reshape the Universe we know into a spacetime/hyperspace hybrid Universe. Effectively, you want a 'Bermuda Triangle' event that you can control. But isn't that an oximoron? How can we control a quantum event that has statistical outcomes by its very nature? I'm not saying that FTL propulsion is *ABSOLUTELY IMPOSSIBLE*, I'm saying that we have to understand more about hyperspace to get anywhere with this problem, and I wouldn't want to be on the maiden voyage.

Have Fun!

Ray

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe wrote on Jan. 8, 2010 @ 01:09 GMT
But Ray, I need a Captain!

Thank you for recognising some of the real problems. Coupling. What are we going to couple two space-times with? I know that electromagnism, charges and virtual particles have to be confined to this space-time. Since the speed of light is built into mass, E=mc2, then all of those momentums and mechanics for motion are confined to this space-time, or should I say, Higgs field. Gravity, I'm not sure about. Whatever couples between space-time/Higgs fields probably has something to say about gravity.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that compression of space-time/Higgs field, if you could squeeze it, is interrelated with high mass-energy. So a black hole would squeeze/compress the Higgs field until an event horizon forms. But could you move it around without squeezing it?

In any event, the strategy is to cause the space around the spaceship to change/transmute into hyperspace space in such a way as to completely surround the spaceship. If you do that, the hyperspace aorund the spaceship becomes a hyperspace object, subject to the laws of motion for hyperspace.

As for quantum mechanics considerations, I'll give you something on my next break.

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Jan. 8, 2010 @ 02:06 GMT
Ray,

It might take some temerity to get on board. You will have to cross a Cauchy horizon, which is threaded by an infintely dense vacuum energy. A nice stroll on the surface of Venus would be far healthier than crossing this.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe wrote on Jan. 8, 2010 @ 03:11 GMT
Lawrence, I also need a first officer.

You won't have to cross the Cauchy horizon. In a way, your spaceship is being smuggled aboard a hyperspace particle/object. Your spaceship will be inside of a hyperspace space which completely surrounds your spaceship. When this occurs, a new object appears in hyperspace. The laws of hyperspace will only know that your hyperspace mass is m' = m(c/c')^2. The hyperspace particle/object will have some mass also, but I'm neglecting for the now.

While inside of this hyperspace object, E&M waves will be completely blocked. You will have no contact with the physical universe because you will be "an island of space-time in an ocean of hyperspace". If you ever wondered how shields and forcefields work, guess what!

As the hyperspace object, with the spaceship smuggled aboard, travels, it will obey time and relativistic effects according to the ratio of v/c'; which of course lets you calculate gamma, etc...

Of course, the observers who watch the spaceship suddenly vanish from view, will scratch their heads and call it a hallucination.

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Jan. 8, 2010 @ 04:35 GMT
The problem is that to make this jump you have to cross that barrier. It is really an M2-brane and it has a tension of about 10^{45}Newtons. That makes driving your car at 150km.hr into a brick wall a bit like running through soap foam naked.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe wrote on Jan. 8, 2010 @ 05:40 GMT
You mean the speed of light barrier? By generating a hyperspace field around my spaceship, and effectively being smuggled into hyperspace, here is what happens. Let's pretend that hyperspace has a speed of light of c' = 1000c. The spaceship can reach v = 0.01c without any FTL propulsion engine. But with an FTL propulsion engine, with a proper design for transmitting kinetic energy out of the spaceship and into a propulsion field going the other way (action-reaction forces), the spaceship can acheive a velocity v = 0.01c' = 0.01*1000c = 10c. During the acceleration phase, the spaceship with pass the speed of light barrier c, without any fanfare. But the spaceship cannot cross the c' barrier without transioning to another hyperspace with an even faster speed of light c'' > c'.

I am assuming that energy is conserved. The use of an encapsulation field, a hyperspace field, simply scales the velocity, acceleration and distances I can travel. I'll explain more later, I have to get back to work. But it's a loophole I found in the laws of physics. That is why I need the nested space-times.

report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein wrote on Jan. 8, 2010 @ 10:09 GMT
I found: Dr Guenter Nimtz, of Cologne University, an expert in the field, agrees. He believes that information can be sent faster than light, but that this will not breach the principle of causality because the time taken to interpret the signal would fritter away all the savings.

"The most likely application for this is not in time travel but in speeding up the way signals move through computer circuits," he said.

Wang's experiment is the latest and possibly the most important evidence that the physical world may not operate according to any of the accepted conventions. In this new world, sub-atomic particles can apparently exist in two places at the same time - making no distinction between space and time.

Separate experiments carried out by Chiao illustrate this. He showed that in certain circumstances photons - the particles of which light is made - could apparently jump between two points separated by a barrier in what appears to be zero time. The process, known as tunnelling, has been used to make some of the most sensitive electron microscopes.

The implications of Wang's experiments will arouse fierce debate. Many will question whether his work can be interpreted as proving that light can exceed its normal speed - suggesting that another mechanism may be at work.

Neil Turok, professor of mathematical physics at Cambridge University, said he awaited the details with interest, but added: "I doubt this will change our view of the fundamental laws of physics."

Wang emphasises that his experiments are relevant only to light and may not apply to other physical entities. But scientists are beginning to accept that man may eventually exploit some of these characteristics for inter-stellar space travel.

Source: The Sunday Times

If necessary, I may give references that prove Nimtz wrong.

Incidentally in contrast to sound barrier, I consider light barrier independent of a medium and therefore absolute.

Eckard

report post as inappropriate

Ray Munroe wrote on Jan. 8, 2010 @ 15:36 GMT
Dear Lawrence,

Have you seen this paper by Mannheim? It looks like it may be relevant (Cosmological Constant, Jordan transformation, ghost problems & GUT models) to your ideas and our discussions, but you are the GR expert.

Have you made any new progress on Associahedra? I have had a nasty cold this week - I'm still doing my regular retail work, but just barely functioning.

Dear Jason,

I prefer "Dr. Cosmic Ray" over "Captain Cosmic Ray", and fear that such a voyage may truly disintegrate me into cosmic rays.

Eckard's quote seems very logical when we consider the properties of spacetime, entropy, and information simultaneously: "Dr Guenter Nimtz, of Cologne University, an expert in the field, agrees. He believes that information can be sent faster than light, but that this will not breach the principle of causality because the time taken to interpret the signal would fritter away all the savings."

Have Fun!

Ray

report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein wrote on Jan. 8, 2010 @ 17:40 GMT
I quoted the Sunday Times because Nimtz was definitely wrong when he claimed having observed transmission of signals with a speed in excess of the velocity of light in free space, and therefore I consider it unlikely that FTL and time travel are nonetheless correct. See e.g. the attached file.

As a joke, I addressed to Peter Jackson a suggested by me thought experiment that could demonstrate an unlimited, in principle, velocity, let's say 1000 times c.

The twist by Nimtz to attribute savings on one hand combined with complete loss on the other hand reminds me of the mathematicians who do not shy back from any twist to save by tortuous definitions Cantor's nonsensical but nonetheless highly welcome naive set theory. Such creation of mere belief did not and will not lead to useful applications. Fortunately, the chance that the majority of physicists will behave as did the mathematicians one hundred years ago and follow, with Weyl's words, a piper like the children of Hameln seems to be small.

Eckard

attachments: AnalyticExpressions.pdf

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Jan. 8, 2010 @ 18:27 GMT
I just pulled up Mannheim's paper, 57 pages, that is rather long. I will see what I can make of it.

I too have been rather tied up, MySQL, php, C/C++ code etc --- need to keep those silly green pieces of paper coming in, life gets pretty rough without them.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny wrote on Jan. 8, 2010 @ 18:54 GMT
Jason if you want for the spaceship I am horticultor thus the garden is for me if you want of course .Without a garden ,no spaceship .

And if we speak abot the shield ,tha nature of the matter ,some rays are dangerous .A good plastic polymere .For exemple ,but let's admit what a spherical shield can be cool .But how to create this kind of shield ,2 poles are necessary no ?

Regards

Steve

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe wrote on Jan. 8, 2010 @ 18:59 GMT
Eckard,

Space-time, and the corresponding charge and electromagnetism, simply can't move FTL in any practical or useful way. To get FTL propulsion, you really have to work with a faster space-time (hyper-space). If we happen to discover one, we're in luck; if not, well have to settle for new Star Trek movies with increasingly decrepit appearances of Leonard Nimoy.

If we do discover a second space-time with FTL capability, transmitting information content by E&M waves might be problematic. For a c' = 1000c, permitivity and permeability are both reduced in energetic flux by a factor of (c'/c)^2. Since the poynting vector S = E X B = (permeabilty*permitivity)D X H = (1/c)^2 D X H, (1/c')^2 D X H is about a million times smaller. I really don't want to transmit signals FTL, I want to move spaceships with cargo, FTL.

Dr Cosmic Ray (Captain Cosmic Ray),

No need to worry. If we find this second space-time/hyper-space, then you can worry.

Lawrence,

Maybe Obamma will let you borrow his green piece of paper printer. If not, don't worry, will all be knee deep in it sooner or later.

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe wrote on Jan. 8, 2010 @ 19:02 GMT
Steve,

Yes, definitely, bring food! We'll protect your garden and the ship from deadly cosmic rays with a hyperspace field.

Two poles, yes you are right. But what would they look like to us in this space-time?

report post as inappropriate

Ray Munroe wrote on Jan. 8, 2010 @ 19:28 GMT
Dear Jason and Steve,

You forgot to pack the magnetic monople? Cosmic Rays are very dangerous - they give you cancer without the superpowers of the Fantastic Four. Any spacecraft would need a substantial amount of materials or fields surrounding it. We don't expect Electromagneic Fields to be stable in Hyperspace, so we might have to use Hyperflavor Fields.

Dear Steve,

At one point, I was going to offer to keep some of your plants in Florida so they wouldn't freeze, but then 'Global Warming' hit Florida and froze us to death. The last four days, our low was between 17 and 19 degrees Farenheit or minus 8 degrees Celsius. My garden doesn't look very good right now.

Dear Lawrence,

I understand about the green pieces of paper - a necessary evil. My work is time-consuming, but not mentally-taxing, so I have time to play with ideas.

Have Fun!

Ray

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Jan. 8, 2010 @ 21:00 GMT
Yeah, we have been getting close of 0-deg F or -10-deg C here. It has so far been warming up to near or a little above freezing in mid-day. That is not too bad for around here. Gotta slam out some code here.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe wrote on Jan. 8, 2010 @ 21:37 GMT
Ray,

If you think highjacking physics, copying its basic format, and coming up with something creative is easy work, believe me, it's not. If we're lucky, the way to accomplish FTL might be right. If not, it's still fun to work on.

I didn't want to violate conservation of energy, and I wanted to be logically consistent. By creating hyper-space fields around a spaceship, it lets me leverage energy/laws of motion to travel faster and farther. But how do you interface one or more of the four forces with a mechanism that controls the speed of light for a volume of space? I do have some ideas.

Why would nature pick the values c and h, as opposed to some other values? I'm guessing that stability occurs at these values. Let us pre-suppose there are other sets of values for basic physics constants that are stable. Two or 3 other stable spacetimes would be ideal. If they have matter/energy in them, it certainly doesn't interact with anything in our universe, that we've noticed.

Magnetic monopoles? I know what they are. It just seems like an oxymoron. Magnetic dipoles are induced when charged particles spin. The fact that forces exist at all is a stubbornly difficult clue to the nature of space itself. Just a silly thought, but can spinning charges induce a form of frame dragging? I just get this picture if an electron creating a whirlpool in the Higgs field. Is that picture consistent with physics?

Hyperflavor? I might want to copy the idea of mesons/quarks to interface with the forces that control the physics constants for a volume of space.

And if you feel it's necessary to utilize the powers of the Fantastic Four to accomplish any of this, then by all means, do it!

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe wrote on Jan. 8, 2010 @ 21:57 GMT
Captain Munroe, please report to the bridge, in uniform, for photography...

http://i11.tinypic.com/4pumasl.jpg

report post as inappropriate

Dr. Cosmic Ray wrote on Jan. 8, 2010 @ 22:58 GMT
Didn't Reed Richards have some sort of anti-matter portal that allowed him to travel FTL?

report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein wrote on Jan. 9, 2010 @ 00:02 GMT
Jason wrote: ... a faster space-time (hyper-space). If we happen to discover one, we're in luck ...

Why do you not look for possible mistakes in what is presently considered the foundations of physics or at least in what experts like Nimtz notoriously are claiming? Admittedly, this would not be a good piece of advice for those who depend on money from authorities who are prone to be best cheated with the most exotic promises.

I tried to serve science the other was round. I noticed a strange phenomenon in physics of plasma, and I combined as many different methods of experimental investigation as I was able to perform: high speed videos from orthogonal sides at a time, simultaneous records of electrical quantities and sound, and others.

I presented my results step by step on conferences: Berlin, Strasbourg, Paris, Orlando, Lanaken, Sevilla, Milano, Orlando, Essen, Graz, Pine Mountain, San Francisco, Bern. When I demonstrated the phenomena to experts they were surprised. When Prof. Jüttner visited me, he not only confirmed my observations but agreed to apply for a joint project, which was rejected. Some referees and editors did not like what was obvious to us. It was at odds with theories. Only a comment of mine was printed, cf. the attachment.

I do not dislike theories. On the contrary. I like the beauty of mathematics. However, I vote for realism. This means troublesome work and sound distrust against mere speculations on possibly questionable fundamentals. Why and how do you expect finding your space-time-hyper?

By the way, several of my high-speed videos showed flying spatter that looked very similar to new born stars. The dynamic diversity of my data in combination with experimentally proved theories was perhaps a better basis for a puzzle of interpretation than the quasi static pictures and spectra of stars in combination with easy readiness to even ignore causality. Nonetheless, I was aware of the possibility I misinterpreted some details, something Nimtz seems not to be able to.

Eckard

report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein wrote on Jan. 9, 2010 @ 00:18 GMT
Sorry, the attachment was perhaps too large (in excess of 1 MB).

You might find it via J. Phys, D: Appl.Phys. 33(2000): Comment on 'Ignition of a welding arc during a short-circuit of melted electrodes'.

Eckard

report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein wrote on Jan. 9, 2010 @ 00:34 GMT
Concerning FLT one more attachment.

attachments: Transient.pdf

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe wrote on Jan. 9, 2010 @ 01:12 GMT
Eckard,

That's too bad that you didn't get your grant. I hope that you find another way to accomplish your goal. If you have a website with video, I would like to look at it.

I understand that you want more realism and less speculation; I hear you. We wait excitedly for the next report by an experimentalists. While we wait, we speculate.

Ray,

If Reed Richards had an anti-matter portal, it would have blown him to bits. That's not the kind of FTL I had in mind.

By the way, I know Lawrence has mentioned that if c and h could scale, we'd never notice. Yes, I complained that conservation of energy would notice. But setting that aside, why wouldn't/couldn't a second space-time exist with a scaled c and h? Maybe some other constant can force it to a lower energy state.

report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein wrote on Jan. 9, 2010 @ 12:43 GMT
Jason, isn't the incredibly simple insight much more exciting that there is always an upper limit to elapsed time or even anticipated elapsed time? Maybe, those who rejected our project were correct. Even Prof. Jüttner was not able to improve much what I already found out. A particular obstacle was that the phenomenon of concern occurs by chance.

What about our videos, they were recorded on several analogous magnetic tapes. When I got retired in 2007, I gave them to our welding department. Due to limitation of my computer, I had digitalized just a few selected details.

The plasma phenomenon I was after is not very important. However, even my boss confirmed that he felt unable to comment on my suggestion not to blindly integrate over time from minus infinity to plus infinity as he did and still does in front of his students on a regular basis. The matter, he said, is too foundational. I appreciate the possibility to address it here at FQXi. I am claiming having found mounting evidence for correctness and important maybe key implications.

More generally speaking I am suggesting that it might be worthwhile to clarify to what extent mathematics is appropriate in physics.

Regards,

Eckard

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe wrote on Jan. 10, 2010 @ 09:42 GMT
Eckard,

Can you elaborate on this "phenomena"? You say you have video of arc welding plasma that violates causality?

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny wrote on Jan. 10, 2010 @ 13:28 GMT
Hello all ,

Dear Dr cosmic Ray ,

Could you develop a little please about the capacity of the shield ?

It is interesting .

About flowers ,you have chance to live in Florida ,the climat is beautiful and likeable there .I have seen on TV the problem about fruits in Florida.It is rare but indeed the two last years here in Belgium too are very cold .The plants here have habit and are adapted with the climat .Some micro climats are an evidence ,rares but are possible .

Friendly

Steve

report post as inappropriate

Dr. Cosmic Ray wrote on Jan. 10, 2010 @ 16:37 GMT
Dear Steve,

I was being silly. Dirac did predict the magnetic monopole, although we don't have conclusive proof that it exists. I still wonder if this is another of those phenomena that might be stable in hyperspace, but not spacetime.

Florida is not supposed to be this cold. Thanks 'global warming'. Perhaps I need to migrate further south. My tropical pet birds would appreciate it.

Have Fun!

report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein wrote on Jan. 10, 2010 @ 20:14 GMT
Jason,

Non-causality is known to me as an mathematical artifact due to apparent symmetry. Observable phenomena do never violate causality. Just models might be wrong if we admit that it is reasonable to distrust any mysticism.

The phenomenon I refer to belongs to an unstable erratically appearing arc mode that seems to contradict LTE. It has no direct connection to my work in signal processing and the ultimate value of time, the now. Physics of arc welding is a very interesting object of research with a lot of phenomena relating to strong magnetic fields, liquid metal, many kinds of particles, and partially very high temperature.

Eckard

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe wrote on Jan. 10, 2010 @ 20:42 GMT
Eckard,

Non causality means that the mathematics is unreliable. The problem with mathematics is that it becomes (1) too difficult to understand and (2) too far removed from common sense. Just because the universe follows an accounting system doesn't mean it's made of math. In my debates with others over the possibility of FTL propulsion, it took six months to get them to understand that FTL does not equal "time machines". I wonder how many decades or centuries it's going to take to apply some common sense to what is possible and what is not possible. If symmetry arguments are coming up with non-causal events, then maybe symmetry only works when you compare apples & apples; maybe symmetry arguments are being used incorrectly.

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe wrote on Jan. 10, 2010 @ 23:56 GMT
Just curious, if the speed of light, c, is constant, can we or do we perform experiments on a regular basis that try to measure the velocity of light, as accurately as possible, under varying circumstances? For example, do we measure it regularly at sea level, below sea level, in the mountains, in space, and at various velocities? To the best of my knowledge, it is not the most finely tuned constant. Are we able to detect small changes in the value of c, 1ppb or 1ppt? If we could regularly check this value, it would be helpful to attempt to match small changes to a particular set of circumstances. For example, what if c changes by 1ppt when in free fall as opposed to sitting in a lab? While tiny changes to the speed of light might not have any effect for our chemistry or our present understanding of physics, it could provide a basis for a new deeper level of physics.

report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein wrote on Jan. 11, 2010 @ 02:14 GMT
Physics has to learn: No matter whether a Dirichlet or a Neumann mirror. The original is essentially different from reflected picture. Merely the picture and the mirrored picture may be considered like apples and apples.

Therefore I expect still failed search for SUSY rather than successful travel FTL in 2180. I would not exclude a priori that c is subject to changes as I also cannot exclude that the world is ruled by Buddha, the god of Jews, Christs, Muslims or the like. However, already obviously wrong claims by Nimtz, Cantor, and the like make me utterly skeptical.

Let's be as honest and humble as was Hermann Weyl when he admitted: In the moment there is no explanation in sight (for apparent PCT symmetry).

I cannot be absolutely sure being right. However, I am claiming to suggest an explanation that was not yet refuted.

Eckard

report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein wrote on Jan. 11, 2010 @ 02:39 GMT
Jason,

Correct (1) and correctly used (2) mathematics is not unreliable.

To (1) I would like to remind of Hilbert's successor in _Goettingen Hermann Weyl who disappointed Hilbert by rejecting large parts of set theory, and I favor considering numbers not like points but like measures.

To (2) you did perhaps correctly criticize inappropriate use of mathematics. I admit that I learned, if I recall correctl, from Jacobus van Wyik or his coworker Schwartz who came from Southern Africa to a workshop in Milano that the integration over time from minus infinity to plus infinity is nonsensical. I am ashamed for requiring a lot of time until I understood the basic mistake behind the notorious shortcomings of the spectrogram. The usual method of complex spectral analysis is not wrong per se but a detour that gives rise to wrong interpretation.

Eckard

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe wrote on Jan. 11, 2010 @ 02:56 GMT
Eckard,

Let me just say that mathematics is a very useful tool. I am sympathetic to those who want to push the limits of the mathematical model to try to fill in aspects of the laws of physics that are beyond our reach. But using mathematics to buttress why we think something is impossible, particularly when some symmetry is crossed, places an unnecessary handicap on the on the pursuit of new physics. Particularly, the mathematics of GR, when velocities faster than light are considered, in puts the mathematics into the time domain. Since the time domain indicates time travel, which is impossible, the logical assumption is that FTL travel is impossible because it leads to time travel. But a closer examination suggests that we might have accidentally glossed over something that may yet be possible.

My point is that we shouldn't just blindly believe the mathematics. Occasionally we should look more closely to see if the mathematics makes sense. We should recognize that mathematics can leave open multiple interpretations, some of which might not make sense.

I think they call it: wisdom.

report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein wrote on Jan. 11, 2010 @ 10:40 GMT
Jason, the prefix in of the word influence points to what is called the direction of time. This directionality got lost when laws were abstracted as differential equations instead of originally integral ones. Accordingly some mathematics is misleading in so far as it offers unrealistic solutions too.

We should not merely occasionally but always very carefully look what mathematical solution is realistic.

Sometimes even unrealistic solutions are useful to some extent, e.g. so called ideal non-causal filters.

What about FTL, one could speculate that paramagnetism could allow c to be quite a little bit than c of vacuum, provided epsilon is not larger than epsilon_0.

What about "new physics", a lot of it it reminds me of new economy before y2k. You should not try and cross the mirror in order to feel your face. Future is not available in reality, not even by means of mathematics, except of course in your imagination after reading science fiction in some journals or arXives.

Eckard

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe wrote on Jan. 11, 2010 @ 12:26 GMT
Eckard,

Ok, let's be very wary of "crossing the mirror in order to feel your face". But earlier, I suggested that it would be a good idea to make lots of measurements of the speed of light, under differing conditions. I'm curious to know if small changes in the magnitude can be detected. If so, can those small changes be attributed to anything. I'm not talking about science fiction here; I'm talking about taking measurements. Can we measure the speed of light?

report post as inappropriate

Dan Benedict wrote on Jan. 12, 2010 @ 05:08 GMT
Jason,

I agree with you that FTL does not violate causality or is equivalent to time travel. Consider the following simple scenario: The year is 2180. A outpost on Mars has been constructed and is inhabited. For many years, the base's occupants and mission control on Earth have put up with the annoying fact that it takes 11 minutes for messages to be sent or received due to the limitations of using radio waves traveling at the speed of the light. But good news is at hand, engineers have just uncovered long lost documents from a mad scientist named Jason from the 21st century who discovered that FTL travel was indeed physically possible. Following his plans they are able to create a device that will record a message and deliver it thru hyperspace to the inhabitant's of Mars. On their 1st attempt they are able to send a message through hyperspace with an effective velocity of 2c. The engineers are ecstatic since the device worked flawlessly. The Mars inhabitants are not as thrilled, since it still takes 5.5 minutes to receive their messages from home. The engineers go back the drawing board and come up with a "super-charged" version of their previous device that has an effective velocity of 10c. The transplanted Martians are somewhat impressed, their messages from home only take 1.1 minutes. The engineers give it one more try and this come up with a "turbo super-charged" version of the device with an effective velocity of 1000c. Finally the Mars inhabitants are truly impressed, they can have conversations with their loved ones as if they were in the same room. The point is that even though information is being transmitted FTL, chronology is still preserved. If this doesn't fit in with accepted theories of QM and GR, then maybe it should be seen as a learning opportunity.

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe wrote on Jan. 12, 2010 @ 07:21 GMT
Dan,

You are exactly correct! Your example reminds me of when I was stationed in Kuwait between the first and second Gulf war. I was fortunate enough to be able to call home using a computer/internet telephony application. There was a delay of about a 1.5 seconds which made conversation 'very nearly' real time.

In truth, I'm not altogether sure what happens to E&M waves when the speed of light gets large; I believe that start to lose propagation energy because c = sqrt (permittivity*permeability). I've been meaning to try to calculate the "magnetic gravity"; I've been kind of busy lately. When I get a chance, I want to try the same calculation for the gravitational constant G and the equivalent magnetic gravity. I want to see if it's possible to write a similar equation c^2=1/(G*G_H) where G_H is the magnetic gravity. I'm not sure about the units. I don't even know if magnetic gravity has been observed.

report post as inappropriate

Anonymous wrote on Jan. 12, 2010 @ 14:24 GMT
Jason

The whole point of my example was to show that information encoded on a device and sent FTL does not mean that it is sent through time into the past. With each improvement, the engineers only decreased the transit time of the information sent, albeit through hyperspace. No time travel occurred. The past only exits in the information we receive via EM waves due to the limitations of the speed of light over vast distances.

report post as inappropriate

Dan Benedict wrote on Jan. 12, 2010 @ 14:29 GMT
Sorry, that last post was mine

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe wrote on Jan. 12, 2010 @ 20:54 GMT
Dan,

Yes, that's right. Time machines are impossible; that's not what I'm looking for. You are describing a means to send information FTL which causes it to arrive sooner than it would via the speed of light. The goal is to send equipment and people faster than the speed of light. That would revolutionize transit. I think we agree on this point.

report post as inappropriate

Dan Benedict wrote on Jan. 12, 2010 @ 23:24 GMT
Jason,

I do agree with you. The anecdote above was in your defense to those who believe that FTL equals time travel. Before you can build a starship, you have show that you can send anything FTL i.e. start as simple as possible. How would you send a proton or electron through hyperspace? Shouldn't this be an easier task? The reason foundational questions are so tough is that it takes many years to master even one subject let alone many. The person who takes on this task needs to set aside much of what they have learned in order to think outside the box and not automatically dismiss fantastic possibilities. Until someone can tell me why FTL equals time travel rather than FTL equals a decrease in effective travel time, I will not be convinced that they are correct. Since this in opposition to current doctrine, doesn't it suggest that this is a opportunity for new understanding?

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe wrote on Jan. 13, 2010 @ 01:10 GMT
Dan,

Bingo!!! I've been thinking a lot about this. Let's take a volume of space; remove everything inside that can be removed (stuff, air, particles, etc...). All that remains is the ZPE oscillators that can't be removed. I can tell you that whatever happens inside of that volume, that box, the laws of physics still operate normally.

Now, frame dragging left me with the impression that space can be distorted to some degree for particular situations. If it can be distorted or compressed, that empty space can be treated as a "something" as opposed to a "nothing". It reminds me of rubber or nylon. By the way, gravity, to me, seems a lot like compression of space. Let me know if you disagree with my interpretation.

If empty space is a "something", than we should really give it a name other than empty space. For want of a better word/terminology, I am calling it a Higgs field or perhaps even a Higgs fluid.

Next step: I want to change the properties of this volume of Higgs field/fluid. If I do that, then the problem starts to look something like chemistry. I want to add some of ??? to a volume of Higgs field/fluid.

X + Higgs space/fluid ---> FTL space/fluid.

report post as inappropriate

Dan Benedict wrote on Jan. 13, 2010 @ 04:51 GMT
Jason

You said: "that empty space can be treated as a "something" as opposed to a "nothing". It reminds me of rubber or nylon. By the way, gravity, to me, seems a lot like compression of space. Let me know if you disagree with my interpretation."

I have recently become aware of a 2nd interpretation of GR while reading Kip Thorne's Black Holes & Time Warps. Like most people, I was familiar with what he refers to the curved space-time paradigm, i.e. how Einstein's field equation describes how matter generates the curvature of space-time, how curved space-time tells matter how to move, ect. I was amazed to find that an equally valid interpretation was what he referred to as the flat space-time paradigm. This paradigm is defined as laws describing how matter in flat space-time generates a gravitational field, how that gravitational field controls motions of matter and energy and how the gravitational field controls the shrinkage of perfect rulers and the dilation of the rate at which perfect clocks tick. This interpretation has been much more intuitive for me, and has lead me to certain insights that I would have realized without it. Thus gravity to me is not a compression