Superluminal space travel

ehs40 · Aug 3, 2005

einstien stated his theroy a long time ago and we are still not technologically capable to test the theroy yet but we cant see into the future and neither could he maybe in 500 years or so this problem will be solved and we will zip through the univers at many times (c) but right now its written on paper and we have no way to prove or disprove this so only time will solve this problem when we become smarter as a people

vidar · Aug 3, 2005

This topic is discussed under the first thread also. It is best to join that thread so arguments do not have to be repeated several places. The issue here is superluminal space travel with ships. It is not superluminal travel of elementary particles in electromagnetic tubes. An electron has properties as photons and objects. Therefore the accelerated particles show characteristics as light as well as objects. I am not surprised that these electrons travel close to c, - light does that. I am not surprised that an electron exposed to electromagnetic forces shows increase of energy, either.

vidar · Aug 3, 2005

The basic idea is that we will eventually map our own solar system and the neighbouring star systems too. Being able to make vessels travel at c/4, or even c/10, would most certainly make us very capable in our own solar system. The vessels could reach distant objects in a short time. Vessels, probes, relay etc, can be controlled remotely, at the speed of light, in our solar system. Sending a probe at c/4 would take 17 year to the nearest star system Alpha Century. That is quite acceptable for a first probe to the nearest star system. But in the long run such ‘slow motion’ will be a great disadvantage. Imagine cross Atlantic travelling now and the previous millennium. The travelling time makes the difference.

vidar · Aug 3, 2005

I think I have heard that story before. ‘Wait an other 500 year to discover America’.

vidar · Aug 3, 2005

I will stay behind and calculate in earth time. I have said it before, don’t bring Einstein. He will only mess up the clocks, the weights and the measuring tape. This journey is hazardous enough in advance.

mondstar · Aug 3, 2005

see, there comes the layman in, hye, one often forgets the space-dilatation a-swell, so when we in future rocketing near the velocity o´lite the distances are going to shrink, won´t it ? 4 photons there´s no time&space & it´s everywhere...in a wink; bye %

Grok · Aug 3, 2005

17 years doesn't sound too bad. That's why all these sci fi writers dreamed up the massive generation ships to go explore the stars. Your kids kids would be the ones who actually get there and maybe you would too as you gasp your dying breath.

Saiph · Aug 3, 2005

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />An electron has properties as photons and objects. Therefore the accelerated particles show characteristics as light as well as objects. I am not surprised that these electrons travel close to c, - light does that. I am not surprised that an electron exposed to electromagnetic forces shows increase of energy, either. <hr /></blockquote> First, an electron does have wave properties, but then all matter has been shown to have wave properties. They do not have photon properties. The part about exposing them to the electromagnetic forces increasing energy is, well, a given. You are exerting a force. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> --------------------SaiphMOD@gmail.com -------------------"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" -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

mondstar · Aug 3, 2005

yet wilful thinking ( skip last entry; stevie, I Believe 6 000 000 000 fur-missing half-apes are waiting to fork right into us): anyhow, let us dream on, also about better than fiction and anew facts, which Quantum-Physics is bringing, ... i find this quite captivating.....exorbitant top-pick..

vidar · Aug 3, 2005

‘Your dreadful lack of perspective and understanding of basic physical principles suggests you will not be able to successfully operate in this world.’ ---------------- I must admit I am not an Einstein follower. That belief does not appeal. However, I will ‘successfully operate in this world’. It is that sci-fi world I am having problem to adapt to.

vidar · Aug 3, 2005

I have mixed feeling about that. It’s like taken from ‘Childlike faith in Childhoods End’ by ‘Van Der Graaf Generator’.

vidar · Aug 3, 2005

Photons appear when electrons are forced by electromagnetism to an ‘outer orbit’ and jumps back, right? It might be literary wrong to say that electrons have the properties of photons, but electrons makes photons happen. That is as close science can explain ‘creation’ of light. And it is not a complete science.

Saiph · Aug 3, 2005

actually science can precisely describe what a photon is, and how it is created. It's caused by a changing electric and/or magnetic field. This changing field induces the other field (changing electric creates magnetic and vice versa), which alters the strength of the originating field. Since the originating field is now changing, again, it alters the other, and so forth. back and forth the fields affect eachother, in a sort of seesaw fasion, creating a propagating electromagnetic wave...light. An electron is charged. When it shifts orbitals in an atom it's position changes, the electric field changes...and starts the process. Altering the rate of current through a wire creates photons as well (radio wavelengths), but it's the same principle, a changing electric or magnetic field creates a propagating electromagnetic wave...which is light. Now, we have a far poorer idea of what exactly an electron is. They have mass, but no discernable radius (we know only an upper limit, imposed upon us by the sensitivity of our instruments), and it acts precisely like a point charge...implying no radius. And yet...it also has spin. We don't exactly know what an electron is. We do know what a photon is. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> --------------------SaiphMOD@gmail.com -------------------"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" -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

rpmath · Aug 5, 2005

I will stay behind and calculate in earth time. I have said it before, don’t bring Einstein. He will only mess up the clocks, the weights and the measuring tape. Even if relativity ends been wrong (after enough time each theory is superseded by a new one), its predictions are accurate enough to what we can measure now... even the time dilation thing. The most of what we see around us is produced by electromagnetic interaction, from the electrical signals that let you think to the chemical reactions that make your cells grow and age. All of them will be slowed if photons need more time to travel between points. Lets say you don't believe in relativity and light moves in some sort of medium: if you have 2 points A and B separated a distance x, at rest light will need a time t1 = x / c to move between A and B. Now, if you are moving fast, in a direction perpendicular to x, the photon will need a longer time t2 to reach B, because B will have moved a distance y in that direction. The total distance will be d = square_root(x2 + y2) and: t2 = square_root(x2 + y2) / c the distance B will have moved is: y = v t2 to get the relation between both times, you can replace y = v t2 and x = c t1 in t2 equation and get: t2 = square_root((c t1)2 + (v t2)2) / c t22 = t12 + (v/c t2)2 t22 - (v/c t2)2 = t12 t22(1 - (v/c)2) = t12 t2 = t1 / square_root(1 - (v/c)2) That's the same value for time dilation you get from relativity... You can say things are movin

mondstar · Aug 5, 2005

loving forms..formulars; and fair weather-conditions to You (hi Steve Hoo-king): so what ´abounds` space-dilation, then ? Applies this to the space-ship captain only (& his vessel) ? From all i understand can a photon count on no time and therefore reach any place in a nod { even with ´me` reading the last A(merican) S(ay-end-tis) in the ´80s AND lots o´percentage o´ lite-speed & wow: Quantum-Physics ! } one should not give a .. moment´s thought 4 the remnant earthlings and their time... occupation. { ...*) b patienced } ( just holding the leather a-going..err flat on the ground, type of an .... typing-over-bord & mikkie´s mouse fault... O~.. % -- /> ~o ...%--> #!!!) all Yours c*

vidar · Aug 17, 2005

--------------------- You have no idea of how the sciences work, do YOU? Suggest a physics course. ANY assertions, claims or hypotheses within a scientific forum MUST be proven to be true. And this one has. --------------------- The special theory of relativity is based on two postulates. Postulates, that indifferent from axioms, means: ‘an indemonstrable first principle, rule, or maxim, that has found general acceptance or is thought worthy of common acceptance whether by virtue of a claim to intrinsic merit or on the basis of an appeal to self-evidence. An example would be: “Nothing can both be and not be at the same time and in the same respect.” (ref. Brittanica) The two postulates of the relative theory. 1. (To state that simply) no property of the universe will change if the observer is in motion. 2. The speed of light in vacuum, commonly denoted c, is the same to all inertial observers, is the same in all directions, and does not depend on the velocity of the object emitting the light. (ref wikipedia) The reason for re-evaluate the theory of Special Relativity is not to make such a personal competition in rudeness, arrogance and ignorance. The reason is simply to ensure the quality of the unproven postulate the theory stands on and the conclusions drawn of them. After a hundred years, it is certainly about time. If not, the postulates can turn into dogmas. I am sorry if ‘this fly in the face of well established, proven physics.’ It must have been what the well established scientists felt when Einstein promoted his theories too.

vidar · Aug 18, 2005

Can you be specific about what ‘restrictions Einstein's Relativity imposes upon you’ that have ‘vast amounts of evidence that supports its correctness’?

daniko · Aug 23, 2005

Here is something fresh ! As mentioned earlyer in the thread, the teleportation is one way to travel through space. May be it's not one of vidar'sfavorite ways of travel but it's a way. One of the key features in teleportation was the way information travels through space. Recently I found an article concerning the speed of light in common optical cabel: http://www.spacedaily.com/news/lightspeed-05c.html The story is about succesful experiments for decelerating and accelerating the light in medium. It's said that experiment succeeded to accelerate the light signal to superlight speeds !!! If someone have any details it'll be quite interesting to for me !

vidar · Aug 24, 2005

Teleportation is not a; ‘restrictions Einstein's Relativity imposes upon you’ that have ‘vast amounts of evidence that supports its correctness’. I would certainly prefer to travel ‘Beam me up’ the StarTrek way, rather than teleportation ala ‘The Fly’. But this is way more fiction than science, and does not ‘impose on anyone’. I suppose such fantasies came about by taking the formula E=mc^2 too seriously. Experiments have proven that we can manipulate the speed of light to be from zero to 300 times c. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_light , the articles; "Faster-than-light" observations and experiments’ and ‘Light-slowing experiments’. This shows how irrelevant c (speed of light in vacuum) is, and consequently how irrelevant Einstein’s postulate and theorys are.

frobozz · Aug 24, 2005

This does not show the irrelvancy of Einstien's theory, or even the irrelvancy of Einstien's postulate's. Although it is nifty. What it may show, is like Newton, who is also not irrelevant just not as cool as Leibniz, Einstien's theory is yet another approxomation of what's really happening. The question I pose then, is that suppose you change Einstien's postulate (thought experiment, so we can do anything reasonable yes, even if it violates currently accepted laws of physics) can one modify general relativity to work with the concept of a variable speed of light? I think you probably could, but as I just came up with the question, I've got nothing to post on the manner. My guess as to a good starting point would be to modify the minkowski metric from: (ds)^2 = -c(dt)^2 + (dx)^2 + (dy)^2 + (dz)^2 to something of the form: (ds)^2 = -f(x,y,z,t)(dt)^2 + (dx)^2 + (dy)^2 + (dz)^2 and see if we can get anything interesting.

mcbethcg · Aug 24, 2005

People want to live forever, so they believe in the bible, quoran, etc. as a matter of faith, despite any evidence to the contrary. People want their science fiction dreams to come true, so they believe in superluminal travel as a matter of faith, despite all evidence to the contrary.

frobozz · Aug 24, 2005

ok, well that fails to work unless the function f is a constant (or if you allow disc. f, then if changes at all it would have to be a jump disc. which is still not good....) So after giving the idea some more thought I take that bit about editing Relativity in that way back, I do not appear to correct in any sense that we could actually observe. ( An interesting question would be if f did "jump" discon. above c, would that section of space even be in what we would call the observable universe? (Basically this is a purely mathematical excercise and at this point no really meant as physics per se, just looking an extreme case I thought would be fun to fiddle with))

paleo · Aug 24, 2005

Steve. I don't know where you get the strength or energy. As a paleontologist I stay as far away as possible on any dicussion on Creationism. The gobbleygook on superluminal space travel gives me equal shivers. Folks life yourself who are bulldogs at promoting actual science over pseudo-science deserve admiration. Always remember, however, no one has to refute pseudo science. No need to prove them wrong. Science is the reverse. They have to prove the pseudo science right. It's hard to debunk nonsense because the whole premise is usually built on a house of false assumptions.

raghara2 · Aug 24, 2005

"The laws still hold, of chemistry, physics, even biology, regardless of the velocity" I don't know if anihilation could work above speed of light in comparison to underlying space.

raghara2 · Aug 24, 2005

"No need to prove them wrong. Science is the reverse. They have to prove the pseudo science right. It's hard to debunk nonsense because the whole premise is usually built on a house of false assumptions. " It's kinda strange believing that someone must prove something. It's somwhat like premise of a GNU that they would make theirs programs compatibile with your libraries and you needn't worry. I hope that concept of proving something right, before discusion didn't come from philosophy. It looks like Occam razor, and that was a fine method how to throw away not only a bowl, but also its contents as well. If you have no idea of proving something in parts and constructivelly wrong, then why do you believe they could prove something in a right way to you, or to anyone else? "The gobbleygook on superluminal space travel gives me equal shivers. " Shivers? The need for FTL travel is simple. It would be too problematic, but possibly more energy efficient, to get from point A to point B without FTL. so FTL is neccessary for development, just as was air travel. (Its more efficient to get from city to city without Concorde, but military would hate to deliver 500 kg bomb by hand.) Actually air travel took pretty long too. First records are from 16? century, and first records about multistage rocket from 18? century. There is nothing wrong with FTL travel, or FTL communications. The problem with FTL is, current scientists are too much dependent for easily observable events. Suppersonic planes were developed after observing supersonic gun projectiles, airplanes were developed after observing animals. Actually it would be hard to find some item that wasn't at least partially inspired by something else. Another problems with FTL might be there needn't be something that would lead to, or give some clue about, functional FTL theory with ability to create FTL working device. Using pure creativity for inventing something like that. I

Superluminal space travel

ehs40

Guest

vidar

Guest

vidar

Guest

vidar

Guest

vidar

Guest

mondstar

Guest

Grok

Guest

Saiph

Guest

mondstar

Guest

vidar

Guest

vidar

Guest

vidar

Guest

Saiph

Guest

rpmath

Guest

mondstar

Guest

vidar

Guest

vidar

Guest

daniko

Guest

vidar

Guest

frobozz

Guest

mcbethcg

Guest

frobozz

Guest

paleo

Guest

raghara2

Guest

raghara2

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Share this page