Humanity's future as a space-faring civilization depends on our development of faster-than-light (FTL) technology.
Here's my theory of how this will be accomplished.
Once we uncover the Higgs Boson, which is responsible for all gravity, we can begin to study the nature of gravity. If we find a way to artificially modify a higgs field, then we can create artificial gravity. We should build a spacecraft in the shape of a large ring, attach high-power nuclear reactors, and send it out to deep space. Once there, we can create a super-large artificial gravity field in an attempt to create an artificial black hole. Once this is done, we can create a negative higgs field around a spacecraft (this will remove all effects of gravity on the space-ship) and pilot it into the artificial black hole. Since the spacecraft is not affected by gravity, it can't be crushed. If the black hole was successful, it should have connected with another black hole somewhere else in the universe, and the spaceship should pop out of the opposing black hole.
What do you think?
GENDO GENDO GENDO
negative higg's field? what crack are you smoking?
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Sep 3 2009, 01:39 AM)
negative higg's field? what crack are you smoking?
Why can't the Higg's field be negative?
Why can't the Higg's field be negative?
The Higgs field is not responsible for gravity. The Higgs field is responsible for mass.
They are not the same thing. Without mass, c is still the limiting speed.
They are not the same thing. Without mass, c is still the limiting speed.
QUOTE (gendo+Sep 3 2009, 02:23 AM)
Why can't the Higg's field be negative?
Because then it would be inertia?
Because then it would be inertia?
Gendo. Worm holes are science fiction. If it were possible to connect two black holes a hundred light years apart, why do you think we can fly faster through them than through normal space?
If you are talking of warping space (as in two dots on a bit of paper and the paper is folded so they touch, as with Stargates, I suppose), can you imagine the energy needed to do that when even large black holes just warp the immediate space around them? The energy need would be prohibitive.
Much of SF is based on FTL travel but we do not know if it is possible. It might not be and we might end up with colony ships travelling for centuries, even millennia to distant stars.
There could be FTL particles in existence but we might not be able to detect them.
If you are talking of warping space (as in two dots on a bit of paper and the paper is folded so they touch, as with Stargates, I suppose), can you imagine the energy needed to do that when even large black holes just warp the immediate space around them? The energy need would be prohibitive.
Much of SF is based on FTL travel but we do not know if it is possible. It might not be and we might end up with colony ships travelling for centuries, even millennia to distant stars.
There could be FTL particles in existence but we might not be able to detect them.
I agree partially with the prior post. According to Einstein's relativity, there's a factor of the square root of negative 1 in masses going faster than light, which most people interpret as meaning going faster than light is meaningless. Also, there's the infinite mass problem when the mass approaches the speed of light, requiring infinite energy to achieve C.
I don't believe that either is a real limit.
We have examples of superluminal phenomena already, including tunneling electrons and evanescent E/M propagation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evanescent_wave_coupling
The weird way that the universe seems to deal with "impossible" stuff like tunneling is that it happens outside outside our timeline - i.e., instantly, so thyat at no point in time can we witness the impossible act.
I don't believe that either is a real limit.
We have examples of superluminal phenomena already, including tunneling electrons and evanescent E/M propagation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evanescent_wave_coupling
The weird way that the universe seems to deal with "impossible" stuff like tunneling is that it happens outside outside our timeline - i.e., instantly, so thyat at no point in time can we witness the impossible act.
The thing I believe would come closest to making what you dream of possible would be discovering that light has mass and actually slows down at distances very far from gravitational fields strong enough to keep it moving at c.
If light's velocity decreases in this way the consequences would be two: 1) stars would be closer than they appear and 2) a vehicle with active propulsion could travel faster than light in deep space.
I know I'm going to get barraged with insults for posting this again, but a person posting as wild ideas as this thread might get some pleasure out of contemplating my idea, which makes it worth re-posting (as science-fiction, if that's what it must be called).
By the way, if light has mass and decelerates and even eventually falls backward in any gravitational field, not just a black hole's, then all stars would appear as black holes to an observer at a position beyond the star's "photosphere."
If light's velocity decreases in this way the consequences would be two: 1) stars would be closer than they appear and 2) a vehicle with active propulsion could travel faster than light in deep space.
I know I'm going to get barraged with insults for posting this again, but a person posting as wild ideas as this thread might get some pleasure out of contemplating my idea, which makes it worth re-posting (as science-fiction, if that's what it must be called).
By the way, if light has mass and decelerates and even eventually falls backward in any gravitational field, not just a black hole's, then all stars would appear as black holes to an observer at a position beyond the star's "photosphere."
QUOTE (light in the tunnel+Sep 18 2009, 12:33 PM)
The thing I believe would come closest to making what you dream of possible would be discovering that light has mass and actually slows down at distances very far from gravitational fields strong enough to keep it moving at c.
retarded
retarded
retarded
I know I'm going to get barraged with insults for posting this again, but a person posting as wild ideas as this thread might get some pleasure out of contemplating my idea, which makes it worth re-posting (as science-fiction, if that's what it must be called).
How astute of you! There's a difference between science fiction and science denial.
Except for the problem that we can see stars in other galaxies. How does that work?
Do you even know how interstellar distances are calculated? How exactly does your "theory" account for stellar parallax? (think triangulation, but with planets and stars)
retarded
QUOTE
If light's velocity decreases in this way the consequences would be two: 1) stars would be closer than they appear and 2) a vehicle with active propulsion could travel faster than light in deep space.
retarded
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| If light's velocity decreases in this way the consequences would be two: 1) stars would be closer than they appear and 2) a vehicle with active propulsion could travel faster than light in deep space. |
retarded
I know I'm going to get barraged with insults for posting this again, but a person posting as wild ideas as this thread might get some pleasure out of contemplating my idea, which makes it worth re-posting (as science-fiction, if that's what it must be called).
How astute of you! There's a difference between science fiction and science denial.
QUOTE
By the way, if light has mass and decelerates and even eventually falls backward in any gravitational field, not just a black hole's, then all stars would appear as black holes to an observer at a position beyond the star's "photosphere."
Except for the problem that we can see stars in other galaxies. How does that work?
Do you even know how interstellar distances are calculated? How exactly does your "theory" account for stellar parallax? (think triangulation, but with planets and stars)
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Sep 18 2009, 04:45 PM)
How astute of you! There's a difference between science fiction and science denial.
Yes, no reason to discount the relevance of theories before sufficient evidence has been gathered to disprove them by denying them. Science fiction is just a status that exempts unpopular theories from being hunted to extinction.
I'm not sure how decelerations and accelerations in light would affect the measurement of distance by triangulation. I can imagine, though, that such deceleration and subsequent acceleration of light could be described in terms of space-time curvature as a high peak over which light would have to pass before accelerating down the slope on the other side.
A black hole, then, could be the result of such a space-time hill whose peak is so high that the light cannot make it over the peak, and therefore has to fall back down the slope in the direction it came.
If there were many such ridges in the space-time curvature, this could account for large amounts of light being diverted from their course to reach an Earth observer. This would suggest the presence of a great deal of unobservable mass, similar to what is posited as "dark matter."
Yes, no reason to discount the relevance of theories before sufficient evidence has been gathered to disprove them by denying them. Science fiction is just a status that exempts unpopular theories from being hunted to extinction.
QUOTE
Except for the problem that we can see stars in other galaxies. How does that work?
Do you even know how interstellar distances are calculated? How exactly does your "theory" account for stellar parallax? (think triangulation, but with planets and stars)
Do you even know how interstellar distances are calculated? How exactly does your "theory" account for stellar parallax? (think triangulation, but with planets and stars)
I'm not sure how decelerations and accelerations in light would affect the measurement of distance by triangulation. I can imagine, though, that such deceleration and subsequent acceleration of light could be described in terms of space-time curvature as a high peak over which light would have to pass before accelerating down the slope on the other side.
A black hole, then, could be the result of such a space-time hill whose peak is so high that the light cannot make it over the peak, and therefore has to fall back down the slope in the direction it came.
If there were many such ridges in the space-time curvature, this could account for large amounts of light being diverted from their course to reach an Earth observer. This would suggest the presence of a great deal of unobservable mass, similar to what is posited as "dark matter."
QUOTE (light in the tunnel+Sep 18 2009, 08:12 PM)
Yes, no reason to discount the relevance of theories before sufficient evidence has been gathered to disprove them by denying them. Science fiction is just a status that exempts unpopular theories from being hunted to extinction.
Science fiction deals with the unknown, and only rarely contradicts what is already known. Sci-fi that contradicts well-known scientific fact is usually dated or written by an idiot named L. Ron Hubbard.
It's a dumb theory, and now you're just trying to find excuses and shirk responsibility for working out the details. Your theory's account of dark matter does not explain the observed dark matter phenomenon in the least. The point of dark matter is that galaxies spin faster than they should with the visible amount of mass. Dark matter is the name used to describe the unseen mass within the seen galaxy.
Your theory that light slows down and turns back at extreme distances is retarded. Light has a tiny bit of gravity, so a black hole is able to pull it back in when it tries to get out. The whole reason a black hole is black is because the mass of the former star is so extremely dense that it is smaller than its Schwarzschild radius. Every body of mass has a Schwarzschild radius, but in 99% of cases, the bodies are larger than their respective Schwarzschild radii. Only under certain circumstances can gravity overcome the atomic forces create a black hole. Because of this, the extreme gravitational forces needed to reverse the course of a photon are not present in deep space.
The point is, your theory explains nothing, is easily refuted, and demonstrates your own lack of research and judgement.
Science fiction deals with the unknown, and only rarely contradicts what is already known. Sci-fi that contradicts well-known scientific fact is usually dated or written by an idiot named L. Ron Hubbard.
QUOTE
I'm not sure how decelerations and accelerations in light would affect the measurement of distance by triangulation. I can imagine, though, that such deceleration and subsequent acceleration of light could be described in terms of space-time curvature as a high peak over which light would have to pass before accelerating down the slope on the other side.
A black hole, then, could be the result of such a space-time hill whose peak is so high that the light cannot make it over the peak, and therefore has to fall back down the slope in the direction it came.
If there were many such ridges in the space-time curvature, this could account for large amounts of light being diverted from their course to reach an Earth observer. This would suggest the presence of a great deal of unobservable mass, similar to what is posited as "dark matter."
A black hole, then, could be the result of such a space-time hill whose peak is so high that the light cannot make it over the peak, and therefore has to fall back down the slope in the direction it came.
If there were many such ridges in the space-time curvature, this could account for large amounts of light being diverted from their course to reach an Earth observer. This would suggest the presence of a great deal of unobservable mass, similar to what is posited as "dark matter."
It's a dumb theory, and now you're just trying to find excuses and shirk responsibility for working out the details. Your theory's account of dark matter does not explain the observed dark matter phenomenon in the least. The point of dark matter is that galaxies spin faster than they should with the visible amount of mass. Dark matter is the name used to describe the unseen mass within the seen galaxy.
Your theory that light slows down and turns back at extreme distances is retarded. Light has a tiny bit of gravity, so a black hole is able to pull it back in when it tries to get out. The whole reason a black hole is black is because the mass of the former star is so extremely dense that it is smaller than its Schwarzschild radius. Every body of mass has a Schwarzschild radius, but in 99% of cases, the bodies are larger than their respective Schwarzschild radii. Only under certain circumstances can gravity overcome the atomic forces create a black hole. Because of this, the extreme gravitational forces needed to reverse the course of a photon are not present in deep space.
The point is, your theory explains nothing, is easily refuted, and demonstrates your own lack of research and judgement.
Very good moot starting point.
I can so symphatize with the desires to find constrainst to select away the options. Given a choice of any system, I think that one can certainly make an inference of some type.
I can so symphatize with the desires to find constrainst to select away the options. Given a choice of any system, I think that one can certainly make an inference of some type.
How would it be possible for matter to continue increasing in density indefinitely without resulting in progressive fusion reactions of increasingly larger molecules generated by the fusion?
Since fusion reactions release more energy than fission, and since presumably larger molecules produce larger fusion reactions than smaller ones, the energy produced by a mass that collapsed beyond its Schwarzschild radius would expand with more energy than reactions at lower densities.
I suppose you're going to tell me that because of the Schwarzschild theory, no energy escapes, not even if progressively larger amounts are being created by more intense fusion reactions. But what about the fact that all the energy being generated from matter-energy conversion would be reducing the mass, and hence its Schwarzschild radius? Wouldn't then the Schwarzschild radius eventually shrink to a size smaller than the contained matter? Or would the matter keep fusing until it disappeared, at which point there would be nothing but empty space?
But for matter to completely transform into energy without any of that energy being transmitted into other matter violates mass-energy conservation. The energy has to go somewhere. Unlike some people on this forum, I do not believe in alternate universes
Since fusion reactions release more energy than fission, and since presumably larger molecules produce larger fusion reactions than smaller ones, the energy produced by a mass that collapsed beyond its Schwarzschild radius would expand with more energy than reactions at lower densities.
I suppose you're going to tell me that because of the Schwarzschild theory, no energy escapes, not even if progressively larger amounts are being created by more intense fusion reactions. But what about the fact that all the energy being generated from matter-energy conversion would be reducing the mass, and hence its Schwarzschild radius? Wouldn't then the Schwarzschild radius eventually shrink to a size smaller than the contained matter? Or would the matter keep fusing until it disappeared, at which point there would be nothing but empty space?
But for matter to completely transform into energy without any of that energy being transmitted into other matter violates mass-energy conservation. The energy has to go somewhere. Unlike some people on this forum, I do not believe in alternate universes
QUOTE (light in the tunnel+Sep 20 2009, 10:18 AM)
How would it be possible for matter to continue increasing in density indefinitely without resulting in progressive fusion reactions of increasingly larger molecules generated by the fusion?
Since fusion reactions release more energy than fission, and since presumably larger molecules produce larger fusion reactions than smaller ones, the energy produced by a mass that collapsed beyond its Schwarzschild radius would expand with more energy than reactions at lower densities.
Fusion does not take place in neutron stars or black holes. In case you were not able to infer the makeup of a neutron star by the name NEUTRON STAR, I will explain it to you.
An atom contains 3 different possible parts. Protons, Neutrons and Electrons. I hope you know their respective charges by now. In a neutron star, the gravitational force is so great that the electrons no longer orbit the nucleus, but are instead merged with the protons to form more neutrons. In the basic sense, a neutron star contains little to no protons or electrons. As such, the neutron star is the equivalent of a giant atom with no electron cloud and no protons.
As for the formation of these two strange stellar bodies, have you not heard of the term supernova? Look it up. All the energy you could ask for is right there.
This is good how?
Since fusion reactions release more energy than fission, and since presumably larger molecules produce larger fusion reactions than smaller ones, the energy produced by a mass that collapsed beyond its Schwarzschild radius would expand with more energy than reactions at lower densities.
Fusion does not take place in neutron stars or black holes. In case you were not able to infer the makeup of a neutron star by the name NEUTRON STAR, I will explain it to you.
An atom contains 3 different possible parts. Protons, Neutrons and Electrons. I hope you know their respective charges by now. In a neutron star, the gravitational force is so great that the electrons no longer orbit the nucleus, but are instead merged with the protons to form more neutrons. In the basic sense, a neutron star contains little to no protons or electrons. As such, the neutron star is the equivalent of a giant atom with no electron cloud and no protons.
As for the formation of these two strange stellar bodies, have you not heard of the term supernova? Look it up. All the energy you could ask for is right there.
QUOTE
Unlike some people on this forum, I do not believe in alternate universes
This is good how?
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Sep 20 2009, 02:46 PM)
Fusion does not take place in neutron stars or black holes. In case you were not able to infer the makeup of a neutron star by the name NEUTRON STAR, I will explain it to you.
An atom contains 3 different possible parts. Protons, Neutrons and Electrons. I hope you know their respective charges by now. In a neutron star, the gravitational force is so great that the electrons no longer orbit the nucleus, but are instead merged with the protons to form more neutrons. In the basic sense, a neutron star contains little to no protons or electrons. As such, the neutron star is the equivalent of a giant atom with no electron cloud and no protons.
As for the formation of these two strange stellar bodies, have you not heard of the term supernova? Look it up. All the energy you could ask for is right there.
This is good how?
I already understood this to some degree but your explanation is clarifying it for me. I take it that the charges of protons and electrons are due to some inherent magnetism in them, and that the attraction of electrons to protons is what causes them to orbit and form atoms. Likewise, it is the momentum of the orbiting electrons that constitute the energy of atomic mass. So reconfiguring the atoms into bigger or smaller atoms changes the relationship between the particles and releases energy that is no longer balanced between the electrons and nucleus. So, I guess progressive fusion reactions eject protons and electrons until only neutrons are left, and these neutrons do not orbit each other because they don't magnetically repel or attract each other? So they are able to bunch together very densely, with only the force of their own gravity holding them together and no energy, electromagnetic or kinetic, to cause any dynamism among them?
So then my question is whether independent neutrons ever recombine with protons and electrons to form new atoms? Surely their must be some reaction that would cause this to happen. Let's say, for example, that a massive cluster of neutrons attracts a cluster of stable atoms with its gravity. If the gravity was strong enough, wouldn't it cause those atoms to fuse? And if such fusion occurred, wouldn't the temerature of the neutrons increase? And then wouldn't the heat radiate out into space? - although I don't understand how heat can radiate through space without a medium - I guess supposedly electromagnetic radiation can travel through a total vacuum but I don't see how.
In any case, if a black hole prevents any energy or matter from escaping, then what happens to the energy of the protons and electrons fusing together? The temperature of the neutron cluster must increase in temperature, and would have to move somewhere as a result. I suppose the neutrons could just gain more velocity, and become like a liquid, but then wouldn't they also have to start "boiling" at some point into a gas?
What do neutron clumps do with energy?
An atom contains 3 different possible parts. Protons, Neutrons and Electrons. I hope you know their respective charges by now. In a neutron star, the gravitational force is so great that the electrons no longer orbit the nucleus, but are instead merged with the protons to form more neutrons. In the basic sense, a neutron star contains little to no protons or electrons. As such, the neutron star is the equivalent of a giant atom with no electron cloud and no protons.
As for the formation of these two strange stellar bodies, have you not heard of the term supernova? Look it up. All the energy you could ask for is right there.
This is good how?
I already understood this to some degree but your explanation is clarifying it for me. I take it that the charges of protons and electrons are due to some inherent magnetism in them, and that the attraction of electrons to protons is what causes them to orbit and form atoms. Likewise, it is the momentum of the orbiting electrons that constitute the energy of atomic mass. So reconfiguring the atoms into bigger or smaller atoms changes the relationship between the particles and releases energy that is no longer balanced between the electrons and nucleus. So, I guess progressive fusion reactions eject protons and electrons until only neutrons are left, and these neutrons do not orbit each other because they don't magnetically repel or attract each other? So they are able to bunch together very densely, with only the force of their own gravity holding them together and no energy, electromagnetic or kinetic, to cause any dynamism among them?
So then my question is whether independent neutrons ever recombine with protons and electrons to form new atoms? Surely their must be some reaction that would cause this to happen. Let's say, for example, that a massive cluster of neutrons attracts a cluster of stable atoms with its gravity. If the gravity was strong enough, wouldn't it cause those atoms to fuse? And if such fusion occurred, wouldn't the temerature of the neutrons increase? And then wouldn't the heat radiate out into space? - although I don't understand how heat can radiate through space without a medium - I guess supposedly electromagnetic radiation can travel through a total vacuum but I don't see how.
In any case, if a black hole prevents any energy or matter from escaping, then what happens to the energy of the protons and electrons fusing together? The temperature of the neutron cluster must increase in temperature, and would have to move somewhere as a result. I suppose the neutrons could just gain more velocity, and become like a liquid, but then wouldn't they also have to start "boiling" at some point into a gas?
What do neutron clumps do with energy?
light in the tunnel,
Every time I try to explain something to you, you take it and run in the completely wrong direction. I'm not even going to try to explain what is wrong with what you just wrote. LOOK IT UP! It's really not that hard.
Every time I try to explain something to you, you take it and run in the completely wrong direction. I'm not even going to try to explain what is wrong with what you just wrote. LOOK IT UP! It's really not that hard.
I don't trust the relativistic equations at all as you approach limits.
The reason for this is quantum theory.
Relativity demands continuity. Quantum Theory demands discreet packets, and thus results in a step function for all things.
So, in Relativity, mass supposedly approaches infinity as the velocity approaches the speed of light. The problem is, this function only diverges to infinity if continuity exists.
If discreet packets exist, then there is no divergence, since we cannot take an "arbitrary" number between V and C. This means that velocity can increase from C-Q to C, where Q is the quantum unit of velocity, without an infinite cost in energy.
Again, in the "real world" velocity MUST be a step function since all energy comes in packets of only certain sizes.
Since Q is a discreet packet of velocity, there must be a corresponding discreet packet of energy needed to accelerate by that amount. This discreet packet cannot be infinite in size, since Q is not infinite in size, and is in fact very tiny.
The reason for this is quantum theory.
Relativity demands continuity. Quantum Theory demands discreet packets, and thus results in a step function for all things.
So, in Relativity, mass supposedly approaches infinity as the velocity approaches the speed of light. The problem is, this function only diverges to infinity if continuity exists.
If discreet packets exist, then there is no divergence, since we cannot take an "arbitrary" number between V and C. This means that velocity can increase from C-Q to C, where Q is the quantum unit of velocity, without an infinite cost in energy.
Again, in the "real world" velocity MUST be a step function since all energy comes in packets of only certain sizes.
Since Q is a discreet packet of velocity, there must be a corresponding discreet packet of energy needed to accelerate by that amount. This discreet packet cannot be infinite in size, since Q is not infinite in size, and is in fact very tiny.
It would be virtually impossible to detect the above difference in a particle accelerator for several reasons.
in order to notice this difference, you would need a measuring device that is accurate and precise to within planck length and time. Even then, you'd have roughly a 50% chance of making an error in measurement that would be large enough to make the result of the experiment useless.
in order to notice this difference, you would need a measuring device that is accurate and precise to within planck length and time. Even then, you'd have roughly a 50% chance of making an error in measurement that would be large enough to make the result of the experiment useless.
The problem with a quantum of velocity, as I see it, is that the Lorentz transform doesn't transform a regularly-spaced spread in velocities into a regularly-spaced spread in velocities.
Where V is the purported quantum of velocity, 0,V,2V,3V does not look regularly spaced if transformed by c-5V.
And that is just one of the ways the idea is inconsistent with measured Lorentz invariance.
Where V is the purported quantum of velocity, 0,V,2V,3V does not look regularly spaced if transformed by c-5V.
And that is just one of the ways the idea is inconsistent with measured Lorentz invariance.
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.