Faster than light theory!!

[kmarinas86]

Conservation principles have lasted for ages. Take the 7 Hermetic Prinicples for instance:<br /><br />http://www.lightparty.com/Spirituality/Hermetic.html<br /><br /><font color="yellow">1.The Principle of mentalism: "The All is mind, the Universe is mental."</font><br /><br />So why do electrochemical reactions in our brain create senses?<br /><br /><font color="yellow">2.The Principle of correspondence: "As above, so below; as below, so above."</font><br /><br />Refers to a fractal universe.<br /><br /><font color="yellow">3.The principle of vibration: "Nothing rests, everything moves; everything vibrates."</font><br /><br />Everything is in relative motion. Pendulums. Transfer of motion, pressure, momentum, etc.<br /><br /><font color="yellow">4.The principal of polarity: "Everything is dual; everything has poles; everything has its pair of opposites; like and unlike are all the same; opposites are identical in nature, but different in degree; extremes meet; all truths are but half-truths; all paradoxes may be reconciled."</font><br /><br />Proton&Electron: Electromagnetic +/- effects dominate.<br /><br />Animals: Electromagnetic effects +/- can power objects inside a large gravitational field. (Most complex geometry emerges when electromagnetic forces and gravitational forces 0|0 are in balance - i.e. animals)<br /><br />Stars&Planets: Gravity 0|0 effects dominate.<br /><br />Quarks: Gravitational effects 0|0 can power objects inside a large electric field. (Most complex geometry emerges when electromagnetic forces and gravitational forces 0|0 are in balance - i.e. quarks)<br /><br /><font color="yellow">5.The principle of rhythm: "Everything flows, out and in; everything has its tides; all things rise and fall; the pendulum swing manifests in everything; the measure of the swing to the right is the measure of the swing to the left; rhy</font>

 

[averygoodspirit]

Saiph:<br /><br /><font color="yellow">Normally, it doesn't matter, as quantum effects only become significant (where they can actually change your answer) at small scales. However, the region of an event horizon of a black hole is just such a small scale region. You're either inside it, or you're outside. <br /><br />The laws aren't being violated, they're being fleshed out.<br /><br /><font color="white">How can you justify saying “Normally, it doesn’t matter?" <br /><br />Size does matter. If that’s true, then we need to get a team of prominent quantum mechanical physicists and a team of renowned relativity physicists in the same room and let them duke it out until they agree with one another because they can’t both be right. They are directly contradicting one another in the name of good science. <br /><br />In my humble opinion, quantum mechanics and special relativity should be in agreement irregardless of the size of the observed matter, but they haven’t fleshed out the science of certain, special circumstances. I just gave you two examples. If I specialized in either field of science, I’m certain I could state many other examples where one contradicts the other. That is strong evidence to support a supposition that both special relativity and quantum mechanics are still in there infancy in trying to accurately describe the universe in which we live. <br /><br />There is much to learn young Sky Walker… Much to learn. Faster than light theory for one. <br /></font></font> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[averygoodspirit]

If you can fuse enough hydrogen into helium you can make your own star. That occurs naturally. Thanks to Dr. Teller, Dr. Oppenheimer and many other great scientists; mankind has untangled the web, and deduced how to reproduce this effect on Earth. Knowing such forces can be unleashed is truly frightening, but it is actually just the tip of the iceberg. It’s the energy in matter that can be unleashed unnaturally, that is where the true terror lies. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[averygoodspirit]

Jatslo:<br /><br /><font color="yellow">I tried the following compromise: (E = m(c v + c i) 2), whereas (E) = Energy; (m) = Mass; (c v) = Visible Speed of Light; (c i) = Invisible Speed of Light. It is quite possible that the visible speed of light has a barrier, or two barriers respectively. For example, sub-light or light traveling slower than zero would also be invisible, so (c i) could also be a negative number as in: (E = m(c v - c i) 2), but this is relative to our position in space-time: velocity; speed. If we could slow down, these slower moving objects would shift into the visible frame of reference, and if we could speed up, those faster objects would shift into our visible frame of reference.<br /><br /><font color="white">Based upon my experiences, I’m undoubtedly a little more open minded than your average bear, but many would say that the speed of light is a constant. They would agree with you and say that sub light or light traveling slower than zero would be invisible. The reason they would agree that it would be invisible is because no such thing exists. They would also agree with you and say that light traveling faster than light speed is invisible because it too does not exist. <br /><br />I don’t know about your equations, but you may be on to something. There are many things in this universe that can’t be detected and therefore observed. That doesn’t mean they don’t exist. For example, I strongly believe that there is life on other planets, but nobody has provided physical evidence of its existence. <br /><br />We have evidence that proves that there are things in this universe that can be detected and observed that actually don’t exist, so why can’t the opposite be true. <br /><br /><br /><font color="yellow">If you say you have done this, then I would have to say that it is possible that you have, in fact, succeeded, because I know that FTL is possible too. All one need do is review evidence that support FTL: Cherenkov Radiation, Teleportation,</font></font></font> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[Saiph]

how can I justify the saying, "normally it doesn't matter?" simple, we live in a macroscopic world, and quantum effects must produce classical results on the macroscopic scale.<br /><br />So it normally doesn't matter because either a) the deviation from classical results is minor or b) the quantum must produce those same classical results in a large system.<br /><br /><br />As for making quantum and relativity mesh...I'm with you...except they've been pounding away on it for decades, so they're already ahead of us there. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p align="center"><font color="#c0c0c0"><br /></font></p><p align="center"><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">--------</font></em></font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">--------</font></em></font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">----</font></em></font><font color="#666699">SaiphMOD@gmail.com </font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">-------------------</font></em></font></p><p><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">"This is my Timey Wimey Detector.  Goes "bing" when there's stuff.  It also fries eggs at 30 paces, wether you want it to or not actually.  I've learned to stay away from hens: It's not pretty when they blow" -- </font></em></font><font size="1" color="#999999">The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

 

[hagi]

www.physics.hku.hk/~tboyce/sf/topics/wormhole/wormhole.html

 

[djtt]

wormholes do not mean going FTL<br /><br />jatslo, im gonna go reread that when im not this sleepy.. interesting stuff

 

[derekmcd]

I think jatslo could careless if you read it.<br /><br />He's was banned a while back. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>

 

[qso1]

one_billy:<br />I don't know why I bother with you geeks...<br /><br />Me:<br />Mine are coke bottle glasses thank you, LOL. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[alokmohan]

Kip yhorne in his chapter on waorm holes possibly implies faster than light travel to Vega.In 1985, cosmologist Kip Thorne was asked by science popularizer Carl Sagan to devise a hypothetical traversible wormhole. Thorne and his collaborators then created what was a remarkably simple solution that would in theory connect two periods in time. The wormhole would not rip its occupants apart, would stay open for the duration of a trip through, would not freeze its occupants inside, and would not create time paradoxes. However, it would require a never-observed form of exotic matter whose total energy is negative.<br /><br />Based on this solution, Thorne later made the first scientifically sound - though not technically feasible - proposal for the design of a machine for time travel. In one version of his time machine, a chamber containing two parallel metal plates is placed on a rocket ship and accelerated to near-light velocities. An identical chamber, with the time traveler inside, is placed on earth. The electrical field created by the plates (the Casimir effect) creates a tear in spacetime. Since the clocks in the two chambers are ticking at different rates due to relativistic effects, the traveler is hurtled into the past or the future.<br /><br />Another possible time machine involves a cylinder made of the abovementioned exotic matter. A time traveler stands inside the cylinder as the matter forms a wormhole, then rides comfortably to a distant place and time.<br /><br />The mathematical reasoning of these devices is quite sound; the difficulty is in locating and exploiting exotic matter (if it even exists). The key is a condition called averaged weak energy condition (AWEC), which must be violated for the wormhole to work. Additionally, Stephen Hawking has declared that the wormhole entrance will emit enough radiation to make it unstable or even close it permanentl Does it not imply faster than light speed?<br />

 

[ldyaidan]

Please don't stop asking questions! When you look at the forum, you will find that several people can be nasty, and some are consistently so. Please don't let them discourage you. Take what they say with a grain of salt. We have a lot of very smart, very friendly people here, who are glad to answer questions.<br /><br />Rae

 

[search]

Check this link<br />http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/000530b.html

 

[alokmohan]

FTL or not it is good transport .You can commute from Vega.

 

[masterdragon]

<font face="fixedsys">But what about the masses of the two objects? Don't they make a difference in the final speed of the objects?</font>

 

[kmarinas86]

<font color="yellow">But what about the masses of the two objects? Don't they make a difference in the final speed of the objects?</font><br /><br />Yes.<br /><br />Air resistance will affect them, and so the change in their momentum will also vary according to each of the masses.

 

[mako71]

I posted this speculation in other thread, but it's in more relevant place here...<br /><br />Because I'm a wannabe-scifi-writer and scifi worlds need FTL transfers, I'd been thinking this problem slightly. And furthermore, I think that "subluminar" speeds make it hopeless for us to really explore the Universe, so we should break this barrier in some point of future...<br /><br />What I was thinking is that it may be so that no matter and no energy can ever break the speed-of-light (SOL). This would include humans and their spacecrafts. Furthermore, I was thinking that because no energy cannot break SOL, you cannot break the reversibility of physical reactions with FTL transfers (making the physical reaction irreversible consumes energy). And of course, you cannot break causality of events and reactions with FTL.<br /><br />That put me thinking how to get around of this problem (for my forthcoming Sci-Fi book . First of all, I thought that basically, if the Universe is existing right now, there should not be any purely logical reasons why couldn't we see its state right now (currently we're seeing the past of the Universe, when watching the sky). I think that "true" time travels (in this Universe, not concerning parallel universes) are impossible just because of purely logical reasons (they can cause paradoxes).<br /><br />---<br />So, logically, FTL should be achievable [if the Universe is really existing right now], but how to do that without breaking some fundamental physical laws?<br /><br />I see (currently) only one possibility; we should somehow control the spontaneous conversion of energy to matter (particle and its anti-particle). If that could be controlled so that the correct particle pair would be formed in a correct location so that they would not collide together to annihilate, there could be a possibility to get some "extra" particles in some part of the Universe. This way, using many intermediate steps, there could be possibility to create "eyes" to other pa <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p>________________ </p><p>reaaliaika.net </p> </div>

 

[alokmohan]

Hope you like tacyons.A tachyon (from the Greek &#964;&#945;&#967;&#973;&#962; (takhús), meaning "swift, fast") is any hypothetical particle that travels at superluminal velocity. The first description of tachyons is attributed to German physicist Arnold Sommerfeld, but it was George Sudarshan[1][2] and Gerald Feinberg[3] (who originally coined the term) in the 1960s who advanced a theoretical framework for their study. Tachyons have recurred in a variety of contexts, such as string theory. In the language of special relativity, a tachyon is a particle with space-like four-momentum and imaginary proper time. A tachyon is constrained to the space-like portion of the energy-momentum graph. Therefore, it can never slow to light speed or below. The existence of tachyons has not been shown

 

[dragon04]

You're tricking yourself at relativistic velocities.<br /><br />Let's say your train was moving at light speed. And you were standing outside of the caboose with a gun. You pull the trigger and shoot a bullet in the opposite direction that you train is moving.<br /><br />As far as the bullet is concerned, you're standing still when it leaves the barrel. From the bullet's perspective, it's not moving away from you at the speed of light. It's moving away from you at the velocity that the gunpowder in the shell provides it.<br /><br />You are moving away from <b>it</b> at the speed of light.<br /><br />The same would apply if you were standing at the front of the train and shot it forward.<br /><br />It leaves the barrel of your gun at, say 3,000 feet per second, or roughly 2050mph.<br /><br />The key is that once it tries to leave the barrel, it's no longer moving at light speed, but only 2050mph. The bullet doesn't get out of the barrel. In fact, really bad things happen because at the very instant you fire your gun, it's travelling AT you at 2050mph less than the speed of light.<br /><br />To simplify, let's come back to Earth. You're standing on the front bumper of your car with a baseball in your hand. You know you can throw an 80mph fastball. The car is moving at 90 mph.<br /><br />From the very second you throw the ball forward, the car is catching up to it. If we want to ignore gravity for a second and assume that the ball flies forward on a perfectly straight line at 80mph and does not slow down due to gravity or atmospheric drag, you can claculate how long it will take for the car to catch up to the ball.<br /><br />Now imagine the car moving forward at 300, 500, 100mph, or 186,000 miles per second at 1g acceleration.<br /><br />The faster you go, the sooner the ball comes back to you, and the "harder" it comes back at you.<br /><br />Stand on the back bumper and throw it in the opposite direction you are moving. Get a friend to put a radar gun on the ball as you throw it. You'll <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <em>"2012.. Year of the Dragon!! Get on the Dragon Wagon!".</em> </div>

 

[alokmohan]

Well said.Where are you leading to?

 

[dragon04]

<font color="yellow">Well said.Where are you leading to?</font><br /><br />I'm leading to telling you that until just now, I hadn't noticed that the original post was over a year old when I replied to it.<br /><br />You see, I saw the post, and immediately after hopped on a ship moving at LS, and when I went to reply, only a week had ticked off on my calendar, so........<br /><br />You know, I don't have much to contribute on this forum, and the one time I <b>can</b> contribute, it's to a long dead post brought back to life.<br /><br />Talk about embarrassing.... <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <em>"2012.. Year of the Dragon!! Get on the Dragon Wagon!".</em> </div>

 

[observer7]

I just want to add a few points that keep getting overlooked.<br /><br />When Einstien was experimenting with relativity in his head, he was working with Maxwells equations for electromagnatism. He thought, "What happens when I'm travelling near light speed?" He found that for electromagnatism to make sense and work properly, that the speed of light has to be constant for any observer. Now what that means is that no matter where I am in the universe, no matter how fast I am going, no matter what gravitational well I'm stuck in, if I measure the speed of light I have to get the same answer. If I don't then the fundamental equations that govern electromagnatism are wrong. A consequence of this is that the speed of light becomes a universal speed limit, we need relativity to explain how to relate moving objects, and energy and mass become interchangeable (E=mc^2).<br /><br />If you want to exceed lightspeed, or disprove Einstien, start by going back to where he started and find a fault in the basic equations of electromagnatism. <br /><br />Good luck! <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <em><font size="2">"Time exists so that everything doesn't happen at once" </font></em><font size="2">Albert Einstein</font> </div>

 

[mako71]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p><br />Observer7: [...] If you want to exceed lightspeed, or disprove Einstien, start by going back to where he started and find a fault in the basic equations of electromagnatism.<br /><p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />First, thanks for your explanation about electromagnetism.<br /><br />I'm very skeptic (i.e. I think it's impossible) that any physical object (matter or energy) might ever exceed the speed of light. What I'm also almost absolutely sure is that time travelling is not possible, because it causes logical paradoxes. I think that any hypothetical FTL method is impossible, if it may allow time travels or if it fights against conservation of energy, reversibility of physical reactions (except when using energy to make them irreversible) or causality.<br /><br />But I'm somewhat optimistic that we could find some "work-arounds" for FTL in the more distant future. The reason for this is, that I believe that the Universe is existing right now, although we only see its past (in the sky).<br /><br />I have turned my speculations to some quantum effects, which are basically random (have only probabilities, no exact causality). If there's a way to locally change these probabilities, they could allow FTL without breaking any current physical observation, right?<br /><br />For example, if you could affect to the tunneling probability (TP) of a distant place, you could encode the information so, that when wanting to send "0" you lower the TP and when wanting to send "1" you raise the TP. Then the other end measures the particles and determines the information from their TP. As far as I can see, this kind of method wouldn't require FTL transmissions of particles or energy, nor it would fight against causality, reversibility or allow time travelling.<br /><br />But unfortunately I have no idea, how we could change the probability of quantum effects of distant locations... :-/ <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p>________________ </p><p>reaaliaika.net </p> </div>

 

[lukman]

Why would it be infinite energy to accelerate mass near the speed of light? When friction is not exist, it takes zero energy to maintain a speed, so, many numbers of small acceleration can be addedd together to achive a greater speed. Is that true? Example, an object of 1ton is travelling at 10km/s, it needs no energy to maintain it speed as there is no friction. To accelerate the object adding another 10m/s requires, say, 100kilowatt. Now, it is travelling at 10.001km/s, crusing with no external force, repeat the step again, then we can see 100kw+100kw+100kw.... soon the object will reach at a very high speed only with 100kw. Although it will never reach light speed. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[dragon04]

Think about it in simple terms first. Your car has a top speed. If you wish to go faster, you must have more horsepower.<br /><br />So you drop a bigger engine in it and go a little faster. But you're still not satisfied with how long it takes to drive to work.<br /><br />So you get an even bigger engine with more power. This only works up to a certain point before it takes most of your car engine's energy just to move itself let alone your car.<br /><br />Same thing happens when you accelerate mass in space except that it's not only the engine getting bigger and heavier. The engine, you, the car and your dog are all becoming more massive.<br /><br />Way before you accelerate to light speed, you become so massive that no engine with all the energy in the Universe can continue to accelerate you.<br /><br />Your short bursts quit making you go faster.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <em>"2012.. Year of the Dragon!! Get on the Dragon Wagon!".</em> </div>

 

[mako71]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p><br />Tigerbiten: Not quite true. You will continue to accelerate but each short burst adds a little bit less less to your speed.<br /><p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Hmmh... Isn't it so, that you think you're accelerating as fast as you used to be (the physical laws doesn't change when in different intertial coordinate system) or even faster than "before" since your mass is decreasing due to exhausted mass, but everyone else think you're accelerating slower and slower, when coming closer to the speed of light.<br /><br />Sounds somewhat exactly the same as adding more and more powerful engine to a car ;-D<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p>________________ </p><p>reaaliaika.net </p> </div>