Superluminal space travel

siarad · Sep 7, 2005

No, chaos is something that happens without any lead-up & follow through. Yes the Tan function is a mathematical sort of version bringing in infinity, snapping from + to - but is not a mystery discovery, more a result of zero & thus knowable in advance. The child's frog clicker is one, jumping from one state to another without warning & never able to hover in between. No mathematician or engineer, calculating or measuring the lead up could forecast the discontinuity The bistable switch used in your PC is another, jumping from state to state with absolutely no control between. It's, maybe, possible to jump from just below C to above but without warning. Until it happens it doesn't exist, like the killing caused by the short crane jib I mentioned. One of Maxwell's equations would point to more & more energy being released during heating a piece of steel say but we now know it's not true as atomic fission would only produce this total release of all the energy of matter.

paleo · Sep 7, 2005

Wrong, you'd get an 'F' in my class. Science is concerned about proof. Foolishness based on non-scientific speculation such as FTL travel and Leprechauns does not have to be refuted. A proposal for FTL based on a rational base of evidence and logic is worth an attempt for refuting as would concrete evidence that Leprechauns exist. However, gobblygook that 'sounds' good (ie wormholes in the fabric of space-time) is still gobblygook. The ability for the Starship Enterprise to move around the universe is no more based in science than a witch using her broom to do the same....even though the former 'sounds' scientific. Proposals in this thread for FTL are based on gobblygook. Not evidence and logic.

ordinary_guy · Sep 7, 2005

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />Scientists utilize the term chaos to describe something that is not understood. Like philosophically is to state chaos for something scientifically not understood, and in math they just slap a big old infinity symbol like -(…) then go home and kick the dog, because they cannot solve it.<hr /></blockquote> Not to be contrary, but "chaos" has a very specific mathematic function describing behavior in nonlinear systems. AFAIK, chaos theory itself has been largely supplanted by complexity theory, but the "chaos" descriptor still applies. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Mere precedent is a dangerous source of authority. -Andrew Jackson (1767-1845) </div>

jatslo · Sep 7, 2005

Yet once again you demonstrate an uncanny inability to step out of your textbook hugging box. “charged particles pass through it at a speed greater than the speed of lightin the medium#8221; QUOTE, and unquote. EVIDENCE Anything relative to invisibility is opinion in your minion, paleo..

jatslo · Sep 7, 2005

Of course chaos can have a function, which is a prediction that confirms the consequence, but nobody knows what the hell is going on, with respect to its agenda or sequences, right? Chaos is well...chaotic, and not understood by the scientific community, so which part of my quote should I change?

Saiph · Sep 7, 2005

no, scientists use "chaotic" to describe a system that does not follow standard deterministic trends. Example: You have a baseball, you throw it at 10 miles per hour, it goes 20 feet. Now, throw it at 11 mph...how far will it go? About 22 feet. Throw it at 15, it goes 30 feet. Okay, no problem. In a chaotic system, small shifts in the original conditions (the 10 mph throw) create disproportionate results. You throw at 11 mph, and if it's "chaotic" it'll go 25 feet, throw 12 it'll go 22 feet. Each step along the way is deterministic, you can start a calculation with 12 miles per hour, and you'll get the 22 feet. You can find any spot in between, you know exactly what's going on and why. But you'll notice the end results can vary in many different ways with only very small changes in the initial conditions. I've done 3 body orbital simulations that show this. Merely changing the initial conditions by .01% made large differences. the initial startup appeared similar, but sometimes an object would be ejected, the end orbits would be completely different, sometimes an object would be retained, or different objects ejected. All depending on very small 0.01% shifts in the initial velocity of one of three objects. That's what "chaotic" means. It also means, unfortunately, that chaotic systems cannot ever be completely predicted, as it is practically impossible to measure the initial conditions with enough precision. Luckily the initial trends tend to be very similar. So using the baseball analogy, the initial trajectory, say over the first ten feet, is basically the same. it starts diverging till 20 feet. After that it's really hard to figure out where it's going to be. Thats why weather forcasts are good for 3 days, acceptable for 5 or so, and complete junk after that. <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>

ordinary_guy · Sep 7, 2005

While browsing, I stumbled over your excellent "white hole" question... it intrigued me so that I had to go back and find the original supposition. <blockquote>In reply to:<hr />If we accept the imagineries, we are going to have the accept solutions to the Schwartzchild (and the Einstien field equations) which include imagineries. Now, assuming I recall correctly, one get's a form of "White Hole" from an imaginery solution to the Shcwarzchild (feel free to refute this with an actual reference, or better yet add to it) this white hole would spew out matter from no where. A violation of the laws of thermodynamics. You may consider this my present objection to your use of equation (1) - Velocity Time Dilation.<hr /></blockquote> A "white hole." Fascinating concept. I've never even heard the suggestion before. Is this original? Some thoughts on it: <ul type="square"><li>Strike one against the white hole. It would definitely be a violation of the laws of thermodynamics... but this is assuming we're in a closed system. The universe itself had to come from someplace, right? Of course, ultimate origins step beyond physics into philosophy but "it all" had to come from somewhere. What if the nature of the white hole taps into the same unknown source?<li>"...this white hole would spew out matter from no where." A negative mass, so therefore a repulsive force and end result: a great deal of spewing [insert joke here]. Consideration: if it's a natural repulsive force, would a "white hole" even be possible? Wouldn't the negative-mass matter repel itself, moving toward some uniform gaseous distribution rather than clumping in the first place?<li>There are already two known charge parity violations (K and B mesons)... negative-mass matter may step beyond simple CP violations to have a whole different rule book. </li></li></li></ul> Just stuff to think about. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Mere precedent is a dangerous source of authority. -Andrew Jackson (1767-1845) </div>

jatslo · Sep 7, 2005

Saiph said: no, scientists use "chaotic" to describe a system that does not follow standard deterministic trends. Chaos has an agenda just like everything else. “standard deterministic trends#8221;; WFT, how about sequence of events?

Saiph · Sep 7, 2005

because it does follow specific sequence of events. you can track a chaotic event down the sequence of events and completely understood the previous step, and the next step. You just can't predict exactly what's going to happen 50 steps down the line. That's why I said trend. the trend for completely "deterministic" events is: A small change in input creates a proportional and small change in output. A little faster throw, the ball goes a little further. A lot faster throw and the ball goes a lot further. Chaotic events don't necessarily do that, due to having many different factors (basically differential equations) that ballance and have counter requirements. <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>

jatslo · Sep 7, 2005

saiph said: "can't, and Jatslo is the little train that can ;o) Since you brought up the weather, I was wondering, if it would be possible to create a hurricane and accurately predict where it will hit, because I heard that “Katrina” might have been an intentional act of eco terrorism, so how would someone create a low pressure system over the Atlantic ocean?

Saiph · Sep 7, 2005

Umm...lets not go into weather control in a thread on superluminal travel. <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>

frobozz · Sep 7, 2005

Unfortunately it's not original, it came up when I was a math conference, their was an introductory talk on the mathematics behind black holes in which it was mentioned that such a white hole would result from an imaginery solution to the schwartzchild system. (not sure if that makes grammatical sense, but I think you get what I mean). Not much detail was went into after that point and they way it was described I thought it was simply something that was well known. So now that we've established a lack of originality on my part I'll respond to your thoughts. To be honest, I hadn't thought of what would happen if a so called white hole tapped another source as I tend to think of the universe as a closed system. However, if it's not closed system and their is some "leakage" if you will between the inside and the outside that then that would make a white hole possible I think. However, this brings to bear the question as to what causes the "boundary" between our normal space and outside space to tear in such a way. Anyway, before this gets any more "fluffy" and less sciency so to speak I'll leave it that for the moment. Aside(Read High Probability of BS on my part - you've been warned): Actually come to think of it no I won't, because the idea brings to mind a vague concept (in my head, perhaps better specified by physicists) of a "baby universe". As the term comes from some essays I read by Hawking that were meant for the general public I am not sure just how shaky the ground I am standing on is here. However, supposing a baby universe is some kind of singularity (and hence we are "in" a singluarity of some other universe) might not such a white hole be what would be seen as a singularity begins to evaporate from space? I'm not sure on this, but I think maybe it might, if not it could still make good sci fi <img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" /> (Aside over, I'm done with BS mode for the moment) In regards to your second point, I ag

cuddlyrocket · Sep 7, 2005

I'm sorry, I missed your original post and had to go back and find it. I'll take your word for it that imaginary mass would imply that the Schwartzchild solution to the field equations of General Relativity would represent a white hole. However, this does not mean that such a thing represents a violation of the laws of thermondynamics (by which, I think you mean the first law - i.e. the conservation of energy). Now, the Schwarzchild solution is just that - a solution to the field equations. So if energy is conserved in General Relativity, it must be conserved in in the Schwarzchild solution, white hole or not. Unfortunately, whether energy is conserved in General Relativity is, to say the least, a non-trivial problem. It appears to be in simplified, special situations, and as to the more general - well it depends what you mean by energy and what you mean by conserved! However, if energy is not conserved, then either General Relativity is wrong, or the law of conservation of energy is wrong. In either case, you cannot use both in the same argument. (This mistake of thinking that the 'popping into existence' of mass implies a breach of the law of conservation of energy is one I've seen quite a few senior cosmologists make when dismissing the steady state theory of the Universe. This alternate-to-the-Big-Bang theory postulated that the Universe looked the same throughout time despite the expansion of space because hydrogen atoms came into existence at a small rate throughout the space. You may think this is a violation of the first law, but actually conservation of energy is an axiom of the theory (most modern cosmologists know very little about the steady state theory).)

ordinary_guy · Sep 7, 2005

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />...it came up when I was a math conference ...I thought it was simply something that was well known.<hr /></blockquote> [Sallah from "Raiders of the Lost Ark"] Math. Very dangerous. You go first. [/Sallah from "Raiders of the Lost Ark"] I admit I'm out of the loop. Glad you mentioned it, though. Learn something new every day. <blockquote>In reply to:<hr />...might not such a white hole be what would be seen as a singularity begins to evaporate from space?<hr /></blockquote> Seems reasonable to me (but consider the source). <blockquote>In reply to:<hr />That being said, negative mass matter would have a strange effect on the curvature of space-time, I wonder how it would actually interact with normal matter?<hr /></blockquote> I think it would depend on how it manifest: complex negative matter formation or simple particles. But to hypothetically rub the two together? Would it go boom? Create static electricity? Pass right through each other? Dunno. Two other bits come to mind, though: 1.) How strong is its gravitic field in comparison to positive mass? Would the strong nuclear force carrier mesons be burly enough to keep negative mass together? How would the electroweak force come to play? When you get into high energies of normal mass, it's in the electroweak that we start to see CP violations and the predicted appearance of the Higgs boson. How would those forces interact with negative mass particles? God only knows. 2.) The possibility of some very fast particles. A negative mass could put it in a potential superluminal realm – where the "tachyon" lives. Could there be negative mass that goes slow? Maybe, though I think that if you plug a low-energy negative mass particle into the Lorentz equation, it would have high apparent velocity. The more energetic it became relative <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Mere precedent is a dangerous source of authority. -Andrew Jackson (1767-1845) </div>

frobozz · Sep 7, 2005

Hmm, you appear to be correct. I have spelled several words incorrectly. Thank you for the correction. Yes I used, their instead of there as well. It's very good of you to fix those grammatical mistakes as well. Actually, to be fair, the correct term is curvature, not fabric. Although the rubber sheet metaphor seems to work as a way of describing relativity, the correct term at least from a mathematical stand point is curvature. Gravity is manifested as a change in the curvature of space-time. I think I referenced a website for you to look at which would explain this if you like, if it helps you should like for the bit on the Riemann curvature tensor. You may not get what's going on right away, but at least you can pick up the terminology and see where I'm comming from. I am not certain what to make of the rest of what you say. It's either the product of some very expensive products that I should say it is rude that you don't share with the rest of us <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> or I've missed something. By all means correct grammitcal mistakes, logical mistakes, general mistakes and most importantly, share up <img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" /> (don't take the j/k at your expense too seriously, just digging back for the bit about English as second a language)

frobozz · Sep 7, 2005

Missing my orginal post, really, don't you know my merest rambling are fields medal material <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> Actually thanks for taking the time to find it. I hadn't realized that the problem of energy conservation was actually non-trivial with respect to Relativity, so you got me there. I'm still inclined at the moment to disbelieve in white holes, only because I would think we'd have found one by now, but you do poke a bit of hole in my white hole argument <img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" /> In regards to those hydrogen atoms, what is explanation for them coming into existence?

frobozz · Sep 8, 2005

Honestly, I'm not certainly I completely understand (1) that goes above my head a bit. (Knowledge of Relativity in may case exists only because I wanted to learn about tensors, so knowledge in how individual particle types work and interact is beyond what I know). That being said, I'll put off any reply until I've worked whether I understand them enough to reply intelligently. In regards to (2), I may be unduly extrapolating here, but would what you say here (assuming the anwsers to your questions were yes) mean that if we had supraluminal particles they would obey a kind of "reverse" Lorentz transformation if you will. So instead of needing infinity enery to reach the speed of light, they would need infinite enery to go beyond it? This gives me a few nifty ideas that may be 100% wrong, but with luck I'll only be 75% wrong

. I think I see a way to model that, but I'd like to know if I've interpreted you correctly. (NOTE: Not claiming that this is true in the real world, but it doesn't hurt to try to work out what /could/ happen yes?) As for 0-g bit, if we assume that for the moment that "negative" matter and positive "matter" affect the curvature of space in an inverse relationship, it should be possible to work out a working answer to this straight from the mathematics. Intuition tells me yes, but I haven't checked it and won't be checking it tonight but the general idea is that if you took two masses A the negative and B positive plugged them into the Field equations and then somehow moved them together close enough so that the gravitional fields interact you could work this out by looking at one point and keeping track of the curvature of space in a niehbourhood of this point. Anway, that's the sketch about how I would think this could be looked at, and one could probably vary the initial conditions (maybe negative matter causes less/more change in the curvature of space-time local to it the positive matter?) and find an answer to t

jatslo · Sep 8, 2005

frobozz said: I'm still inclined at the moment to disbelieve in white holes, only because I would think we'd have found one by now I would agree, but I think our universe is a white hole; the white hole would involve high-pressures in space-time, in which they would have a coldness about them that we could detect; that is my opinion. It is quite possible, in terms of opposites, that black holes and white holes are connected, as in universe connected to anti-universe, and this is opinion too.

ordinary_guy · Sep 8, 2005

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />In regards to (2), I may be unduly extrapolating here, but would what you say here (assuming the anwsers to your questions were yes) mean that if we had supraluminal particles they would obey a kind of "reverse" Lorentz transformation if you will. So instead of needing infinity enery to reach the speed of light, they would need infinite enery to go beyond it? This gives me a few nifty ideas that may be 100% wrong, but with luck I'll only be 75% wrong

. I think I see a way to model that, but I'd like to know if I've interpreted you correctly. (NOTE: Not claiming that this is true in the real world, but it doesn't hurt to try to work out what /could/ happen yes?)<hr /></blockquote> I figure they face the same asymptotic luxon wall that we do but from the other direction... Then again, you just never know. Considering the possibility of asymmetry, a negative mass might follow different rules, perhaps a linear climb where it blasts right through a type of reverse transformation (if "transformation" is even the correct term for it in that case). Maybe it's even weirder, following a parabola instead, with "c" the point of highest energy expenditure, then energy requirement drops as it goes slower still until you have a type of stationary negative-mass matter. <blockquote>In reply to:<hr />On a philosophical note, perhaps this is just what happened with the "real" big-bang. If we accept that the universe is exanding kinda like a topological baloon, then if it started off small enough, their would have been a "squeezing" force by very nature of lack of space. Either the force of our theoretical white hole pushes space outwards, or something else does it, and bingo, one big giant explosion of matter.<hr /></blockquote> Quite possible. It would be interesting to approach the current state affairs with this idea and see how it affect the model. Consider if t <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Mere precedent is a dangerous source of authority. -Andrew Jackson (1767-1845) </div>

cuddlyrocket · Sep 8, 2005

The proponents of the steady state theory never got round to specifying a mechanism for the creation of all those hydrogen atoms. Although, to be fair, the proponents of the Big Bang theory have never specified a mechanism for the creation of the entire Universe in an instant!

frobozz · Sep 8, 2005

Hmm, I think then we'd need to get a hold of a supraluminal particle (should one exist) before any more useful speculation could done here. The model I was thinking of was pretty much what you describe, with the negative mass having a kind of "reverse" Lorentz transformation associated with them giving a discontinuity at c where neither can naturally cross the boundary. However, their is no reason to require that negative mass follow such a transformation as the basis for the Lorentz transform is that it is invarient under the maxwell equations. Negative mass would need to follow that stipulation. I wonder what stipulation one could expect them to follow.... As for the "big bang" idea, perhaps we would still have symmetry after a fashion. If positive mass creates a gravitional field of strength 1/r^2 then perhaps negative mass, being it's "inverse" so to speak, would create an anti-gravitational field of strength r^2?

frobozz · Sep 8, 2005

Perhaps one could find a solution to the problem in a manner akin to how Hawking Radiation occurrs. Of course, with nothing in the universe to begin with (at t = 0), I'd be hard pressed to figure out how this could occur.

jatslo · Sep 8, 2005

Yet once again you demonstrate an uncanny inability to step out of your textbook hugging box. “charged particles pass through it at a speed greater than the speed of lightin the medium#8221; QUOTE, and unquote. EVIDENCE Anything relative to invisibility is opinion in your minion, stevehw33..

jatslo · Sep 8, 2005

It does not matter what medium is utilized; the effect is the same. Masses of matter -(m) exceed the visible-speed-of-light -(c) period. You could argue that chaos or containment would prevent our forecasts from accurately predicting the effect. In terms of containment a new zero-resistive medium is a statistical improbability based off of real evidence, you could argue that. In terms of chaos, I am not sure, if there is evidence to support that argument. Let’s be logical.

frobozz · Sep 8, 2005

Ok, now I've got to wonder sometimes if you post just for the sake of seeing what the response will be. Some (not all) of your posts seem to be nothing more than taking whichever buzz word seems to be on the forum at the moment and combine them to get a new response. Kinda like a chat bot, only a good one. Let's call this conjecture J - J is a chat bot <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> So in the event you were looking for an entertaining response perhaps the above will get you a good laugh. In regards to what you actually seemed to have posted, all conjectures and such aside, chaos really has nothing to do with this. Physics, as it is, pretty much states the speed of light as a law (with reason). We can play with the law and see what happens for our own amusement and maybe if we're lucky we /might/ get something more out of it, but chaos isn't coming into the picture (in this case - n body class problems not withstanding as that isn't really what's being looked at here). So let's save chaos theory from abuse at the moment. If the speed of light in a vacuum where actually chaotic (QM aside at the moment, we are looking at the problem in the large if you will), then that chaos would be manifest in relativity. Specifically, we should see that the geodesics (the straight lines that light follow if you follow <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> ) are at the very least highly dependent upon the initial conditions. (since they are related to the speed of light). I believe the concept of dependance on initial conditions has been gone over by others on the board before so I'll not beat it into a bush unless you ask it. The upshot of this, is that we would have absolutely no way of knowing what to make of our observations of the universe and no way of predicting where most of the stars in the sky actually are. Now correct me if I'm wrong, but for the most part, Astronomy isn't a probabilistic science and we can within reason predict these th

Superluminal space travel

siarad

Guest

paleo

Guest

ordinary_guy

Guest

jatslo

Guest

jatslo

Guest

Saiph

Guest

ordinary_guy

Guest

jatslo

Guest

Saiph

Guest

jatslo

Guest

Saiph

Guest

frobozz

Guest

cuddlyrocket

Guest

ordinary_guy

Guest

frobozz

Guest

frobozz

Guest

frobozz

Guest

jatslo

Guest

ordinary_guy

Guest

cuddlyrocket

Guest

frobozz

Guest

frobozz

Guest

jatslo

Guest

jatslo

Guest

frobozz

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Share this page