WARP DRIVE, AHEM!

John Creighton · 2005-09-17 16:48:07

http://www.physics.hku.hk/~tboyce/sf/to … mhole.html

I enjoyed reading the link. It was funny how I was thinking of zero point energy as a way to get negative energy just before I read the link. There seems to be some pretty tight restrictions on negative energy. It also seems that in is incredibly energy intensive to create enough negative energy for a worm hole or a warp drive unless the negative energy can exist in an extremely thin band (Much less then planks constant). It is most likely that the uncertainty principle will not allow the creation of such precisely engineered structures. Thus a worm hole or warp drive on the macro scale currently appears to be an impossibility.

Dook · 2005-09-17 19:59:21

The known energy band of EMR ranges from high frequency/short wavelength/high energy gamma rays to low frequency/high wavelength/low energy AM radio waves.

What if it's not a band at all but a circle and negative EMR makes up the other half of the circle?

GCNRevenger · 2005-09-18 18:17:42

The known energy band of EMR ranges from high frequency/short wavelength/high energy gamma rays to low frequency/high wavelength/low energy AM radio waves.
What if it's not a band at all but a circle and negative EMR makes up the other half of the circle?

Band? What are you talking about? There are short wavelengths and there are long wavelengths, but there are no wavelengths shorter then zero nor longer then infinity.

Austin Stanley · 2005-09-22 00:45:38

Hmm... alot of points to respond to her.

#1. Alternitive law of electromagnetisim (Dook)
What you propose might be intresting, but all expermintal evidence points to electromagnetic wavelengths existing along a spectrum (a line) not a circle. Wavelengths increase with a limit at positive infinity, and decrease with a limit at zero. In any case even if it was not so, it's not mathmaticaly possible to progress from beyond positive infinity back around to zero or negative infinity. And again there is no conclusive evidence of negative energy even existing.

#2. Gravity waves (Dook)
Indeed we should be able to detect the Gravitational "waves" produced by massive objects, or objects traveling at very high speeds. Their presences has been proven indirectly at least, by measurment the orbits of binary pulsars and the like. The problem here is that Gravity is such a weak force it takes extreamly massive/fast moving objects to create effects that are detectible, and thankfully such objects are far from our Earth. So far all direct attempts at detecting it have been failures. It is currently an open question as to the speed at which these "waves" propigate from their source, but most reaserach points to their speed being very close if not equal to C. Even if they did travel FTL, utilising them would be difficult given the massive energies necessary in creating detectible waves at great distances. Of course this is the part of GR that is in most conflict with Quantum mechanics and research is still progressing.

#3. Zero Point Energy
The concept of zero point energy arrises from the uncertian principle. If we accuratly measure the energy inside a volume to be zero, then the uncertianty in it's position must be infinite, placing it outside the box. To avoid this paradox quantum mechanics dictaes that this energy must be greater than zero, hence zero point energy. This energy is NOT negative as that would create a whole new paradox. There is some slim hope that energy may be extracted from this phenominon, but I wouldn't hold my breath. Likely it will take as much or more energy to extract the energy as you get. Local imbalances in this force may be the cause of some effects such as the Casmir effects.

#4. Virtual Particles
Virtual particles are temporary stages in the interaction of elementry particles. They generaly can be thought of as a means of transmiting the information of these interactions. Quantum Mechanics predicts a field of these anti-particles swarming across our universe. In order to perserve the baryon number these particles always come in particle anti-particle pairs. In some cases these two particles can be seperated and become "real" however this always requires the expenditue of at least an equal amount of energy. And again the imbalances in this force may be the cause of some effects such as the Casmir effects.

------------

It's very important to note that all of this stuff is on the forfront of Quantum and Theoritcal physics, and our models and understanding of it may change. However there are quite a few things that probably will NOT change.
No FTL travel. Special Realitivity has gobs of experimental evidence backing it up and so it's postiulates are not likely to fall. The nature of the grandfather paradox's this creates isn't likely to go away either.
Concervation of Energy. Another concept with even more backing behind it. We are not likely to get energy from nothing (or from ZPE or Virtual Particles or anything else). The laws of thermodynamics are pretty solid.

That said, work in Quantum, Theoritcal, and even String Physics may shake things up alot on the sub-atomic scale. General Realtivity may even be disproven or replaced in a general sense. But I agree with most respected physicits and doubt there will be any major shake ups to the above two vital principles.

John Creighton · 2005-09-22 01:11:43

Hmm... alot of points to respond to her.
#3. Zero Point Energy
The concept of zero point energy arrises from the uncertian principle. If we accuratly measure the energy inside a volume to be zero, then the uncertianty in it's position must be infinite, placing it outside the box. To avoid this paradox quantum mechanics dictaes that this energy must be greater than zero, hence zero point energy. This energy is NOT negative as that would create a whole new paradox. There is some slim hope that energy may be extracted from this phenominon, but I wouldn't hold my breath. Likely it will take as much or more energy to extract the energy as you get. Local imbalances in this force may be the cause of some effects such as the Casmir effects.

You didn't read this link
http://www.physics.hku.hk/~tboyce/sf/to … mhole.html

If you extract energy from the vacuum you do infact create a region of negative energy. However as it says in the link nature creates strong limits on negative energy. The greater the intensity of the negative energy the smaller the region can be. Also the region of positive energy surrounding the region of negative energy must be greater then the region of negative energy "Nature pays back with interest". The interest is such that the "interest paid" to create enough negative energy to support a warp drive for a star ship is many times the energy of the known universe. Hence there are no paradoxes with the current models of negative energy.

karov · 2005-09-23 06:04:57

Hmm... alot of points to respond to her.
#3. Zero Point Energy
The concept of zero point energy arrises from the uncertian principle. If we accuratly measure the energy inside a volume to be zero, then the uncertianty in it's position must be infinite, placing it outside the box. To avoid this paradox quantum mechanics dictaes that this energy must be greater than zero, hence zero point energy. This energy is NOT negative as that would create a whole new paradox. There is some slim hope that energy may be extracted from this phenominon, but I wouldn't hold my breath. Likely it will take as much or more energy to extract the energy as you get. Local imbalances in this force may be the cause of some effects such as the Casmir effects.
You didn't read this link
http://www.physics.hku.hk/~tboyce/sf/to … mhole.html
If you extract energy from the vacuum you do infact create a region of negative energy. However as it says in the link nature creates strong limits on negative energy. The greater the intensity of the negative energy the smaller the region can be. Also the region of positive energy surrounding the region of negative energy must be greater then the region of negative energy "Nature pays back with interest". The interest is such that the "interest paid" to create enough negative energy to support a warp drive for a star ship is many times the energy of the known universe. Hence there are no paradoxes with the current models of negative energy.

Yes, but the idea of "negative energy compensation interest of the nature" sounds to me like more complicated way to abolish the feasibility of the energy/anti-energy symetry. From where comes the dissymetry? Why the possitive energy showld be bigger? Where the excess of possitive energy goes? Isn`t it THIS braking the Law of the energy conservastion? Or the answer is simple? -- the stolen from the ZeroGround possitive energy via imposing thermodynamical interest over the N-energy credits, again as in the economy creates inflation? I mean inflation in the literal cosmological and cosmogonical aspect. The same as in the idea of Eduard Tryon, that the summary energy of the Universe is zero ( the positive energy of the stuff, cancels exactly the negative energy of the interactions - YES, say gravity possesses negative energy - its potential enegy increases with the distance!)... Accepting the idea of "negative energy interest rates", than we are very close to the conclusion that: TO START AN UNIVERSE, you just should borrow something from the nothing - later the building up forever inflation drives the expansion to infinity. An because the uncertainty principle postulates that that happened all the time, and every system is doomed to "vibrate" - infinity of infinities!!!

We should consider this carefully, cause the nature , even if puts "interests" , punishes every symetry brake with SUPER-symetry -- next level of attempt for leveraging the balances. Regarding the way Zero Ground wobbles from less than nothing to something ( s.t. from aspect of our side of the mirror)

I think as in the case with the also hard for intelectual digestion much earlier idea for the antimatter, which S-es the matter, and SUSY things, mirror matter, the couple N-enerrgy/P-energy is unbrakeble. No P without N...

If N-production is "taxed" by the universe, than lets make it like the universe itself to come out in existence -- just Produce equal amount of P-energy to balance it.

You said more energy than the whole Universe,... yes if you try to start N-energy techs for FTLs, their needs of quantities of N-energy, would mean, that you don`t need say to spend / transform a Jupiter mass of P-energy to create 1m wide WH, or to move FTL 1m wide Warp bubble, but that you MUST produce a Jupiter mass of P-energy in order to exactly balance the N-energy...

I.e. The very existence of this Universe is such over-interested N-/P-energy brake of the symetry. What different in smaller , intra-universe scales.

reddragon · 2005-09-23 14:52:24

Fran de Aquino on the other side has an nice website about his theory which he has presented AFAIR at CERN and he has made successful trials to produce an antigravity-drive!

I googled Fran de Aquino and found some stuff on his theories, most of which I didn't really understand. He seemed to claim to have demonstrated an antigravity effect my running electricity through a certain type of wire; I admit I didn't really understand most of it. This was a small experiment seeming to show a certain effect, not a dramatic levitation of anything, so it wouldn't necessarily make headlines, but it is also in need of verification by other scientists if it is to be taken seriously. Overall de Aquino's ideas seem questionable, but he doesn't seem like a complete crackpot either.

Information CANNOT be transmited FTL. Why? Because if it also causes some information to be transmited backwards in time to some observers, causing causality violations.

Quantum entanglement seems to provide a method by which information is transmitted FTL, and I would not be surprised if we find a way to use it to communicate one day. I am not sure, however, how this would involve transmitting any information back in time.

About the Casimir effect: I have often heard that it could theoretically be a source of free energy. Is this true, or would extracting zero-point/vacuum energy that way decrease the total ZPE.

John Creighton · 2005-09-23 15:11:33

I think people are missing the point of the zero point energy. It is not free energy just like it is not free to move heat from hot to cold. You have to put positive energy in to get negative energy out and the more negative energy you get out the more positive energy you had to put in. This is what they mean by, "You must pay Nature back with interest". There is no free lunch.

karov · 2005-09-24 01:39:46

I think people are missing the point of the zero point energy. It is not free energy just like it is not free to move heat from hot to cold. You have to put positive energy in to get negative energy out and the more negative energy you get out the more positive energy you had to put in. This is what they mean by, "You must pay Nature back with interest". There is no free lunch.

I thought that you have to put positive energy OUT in order to get negative energy OUT, and the more negative energy you get OUT the more positive energy you had to put OUT.

Cause, you are right - no free lunch, that`s why if you want to have the (-) in certain quantity, you should balance the amount of (-) produced with the same amount of (+) in order to suffice the requirements for the equation -&+ = Nothing.

Proof: Hawking radiation. You know how the black holes "emit" radiation. Because of the uncertainty principle around the Swarzschild boundary as in evey other space-time, constantly coples of virtual particles emerge. The space-time continuum is constantly in move, all the time little waves ( the bottom (-)energy the back (+)energy ) occur. The Swarzschild edge cuts of the couples, and the black hole builds up with negative energy, which in result frees the uncaptured real-energy counterpart of the wave, the black hole mass/energy decreses with one negenergy quantum, and from external point of view the black hole shrinks. Because of the surface area of the black hole exactly measures the BH`s enthropy, yes, decrease in its mass/eneregy/raduis means that the enthropy of the BH decreases, but on account of the increase of the enthropy in the BH`s environment. Via this energy/negenergy mechanism the BH is not closed system. The thermodinamics postulate that in an CLOSED system enthropy increases.

Actually, one have to cause significant in macroscopical sence quantum fluctuation , a.k.a. real energy/negenergy "tsunami" and to try to deal with the negenergy as one wants before the two counterparts of the wave to cancel eachother to flat space again. Theoretically the amount of the energy and negenergy could be arbitrary big ( Just look the UNIVERSE, Marteen Rees , the Royal astronomer reasonably accepts universe with actual infinity ), in such trade -infinity canceles the +infinity...

karov · 2005-09-24 01:57:31

... in that sence what the proponents of the FTL using negenergy are trying to figure out is:

1. Alcqubierre, van den Broek, etc. for Warp Drive ( WD ), how to ride giant fluctuation , reprersenting shaped wave of one negenergy crunch, flat space and energy bang ( the total is about zero)

2. For the worm holes ( WH ), how to stuck the throat of the WH with negenergy separated by its energy for enough time of non-recollapsing in order to allow passing of objects or at least info.

About the time paradoxes, I think the most elegant and Occam-compatible solution is the implementation of the ManyWorlds meta-theory of the quantum mechanics:

As I remember this was stated by David Deutsch in "The Fabric of Reality" ( this book would change the world charging the mass consciousness with lots of evolution driving enthusiasm, if D.Deutsch wasn`t so awfull storyteller):

OK, lets FTL leads to back-in-time travel. BUT -- actually you don`t change YOUR reality sending back in time a signal ), but this way you create new reality with 'only' one difference with yours: in your reality`s past never arrived "ship or SMS from the future"... From quantum mechanical point of view, to send signal in the past is nothing different from the numerous 10exp100 at least divergence events of the ManyWorlds. The FTL ship disappears from your timeline, and creates new one... According to the symmetry in time of the quantum processes, the future is not priviledged at all to be uncertain. Actually the paths fork deep down towards the past. The same way from one state could evolve infinity of different futures, thus to this state lead infinity of diferent past event chains.

John Creighton · 2005-09-24 02:11:00

1. Alcqubierre, van den Broek, etc. for Warp Drive ( WD ), how to ride giant fluctuation , reprersenting shaped wave of one negenergy crunch, flat space and energy bang ( the total is about zero)

The total energy is not zero. You have to put more positive energy in then the negative energy you get out. You have to put so much more positive energy in then what you get out that the extra energy needed for a war drive for a star ship is many times that of the known universe. Hence by the known laws of physics a warp drive for a star ship is impossible.

karov · 2005-09-24 02:19:51

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

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

http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_a … 1125b.html

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/R … wking.html

... and the most understandable:

http://www.rdrop.com/users/green/school/radiatin.htm , roughly speeking the black hole FTL boundary cuts off the halves of the E/-E waves...

In that sence really, no free lunch, no one and nothing produces E & -E , the fluctuations produce separation of them because -E + E = 0 ... Prognose the evolution of these separations , describe with this theory: universe, black holes, WH, WD...

Look also for "Leonard Susskind" , he united the things in great degree.

karov · 2005-09-24 02:20:54

http://www.gravityfromthegroundup.org/p … iation.pdf

the article begins with analogy BH - WD

Stormrage · 2005-11-19 19:54:05

An object approaching the speed of light needs infinite energy to continue to increase speed. .

Actually the object doesn't move. The It moves the surronding space.

MarsDog · 2005-11-20 23:36:07

Latest Scientific American article is our 3D reality, a hologram based on 2D.
http://www.dailycal.org/article.php?id=20361
If all is a projected hologram, then just a 3D movie we are ?

4D theory
http://home.comcast.net/~jeffocal/chapter1.htm

Strings: 10D theory
http://tena4.vub.ac.be/beyondstringtheo … sions.html

The mathematics of string theory is such that it leaves us with a dilemma. We either choose to have ten dimensions, or we can choose to accept that there are particles that have a negative probability to be in the universe.

Video of theories
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/program.html

-------------------------------------------------------

Bertrand Russell:

The fact that all Mathematics is Symbolic
Logic is one of the greatest discoveries of our age

So don't expect complete description of the universe.
(you have to keep making more definitions)

Another good one:
“ In mathematics you don't understand things. You just get used to them. ”
- Von Neumann

dryson · 2007-06-26 16:46:04

1st - is gravity present throughout the entire universe? Most likely not do to the fact that planetary bodies produce gravity fields based on the rotation, friction and composition of a planets core. The more active a planets core or planetary bodies core is based on the mass of the core itself will generate a gravitated field proportional to the core. A larger more active core will produce a greater gravitated field, a less active core will produce a smaller gravitated field

Taking various sizes of magnets may be a way to prove this. Lay a white piece of velum paper on a table, the area will need to be large enough to have several sizes of solid magnets placed on it. place the magnets out of each others magentic field, then sprinkle some iron filings around each magnet, to find each magnets gravitated field strength, measure out from the center of the magnet to where the filings have spread out the furthest.

Now this same basic principle can be applied to solar objects. Eventually the gravitated field produced will weaken the further away from the magnet or planetary body it gets or magnetic dissapation.

What this means is that once a vessel is free from a solar systems gravtitated field, then it could be safe to operate its warp engines, otherwise if engaged while in system, the fields generated by the vessel may interact with a planetary body throwing the vessel in whatever direction.

Here is one theory that I have to create a faster or as near light speed reaction.
Lasers, now we know that lasers travel at the speed of light. What if a way were found to attach atoms to the lasers photon orbitals that would not react with the photons but when collided together with other atoms would create a burst of energy. This energy would be collided at light speed but given "for every reaction there is an equal and opposite reaction" the collision of the atoms would create a slower then light speed reaction due to energy bleed off. To set how fast you would go you most likely would need to find a way to add or subtract the atoms attached to the photon orbital path.

Mark Friedenbach · 2007-06-26 17:54:39

what are you talking about?

dryson · 2007-07-17 20:22:06

The mass of an object is a fundamental property of the object; a numerical measure of its inertia; a fundamental measure of the amount of matter in the object. Definitions of mass often seem circular because it is such a fundamental quantity that it is hard to define in terms of something else. All mechanical quantities can be defined in terms of mass, length, and time. The usual symbol for mass is m and its SI unit is the kilogram. While the mass is normally considered to be an unchanging property of an object, at speeds approaching the speed of light one must consider the increase in the relativistic mass.

The weight of an object is the force of gravity on the object and may be defined as the mass times the acceleration of gravity, w = mg. Since the weight is a force, its SI unit is the newton. Density is mass/volume.

Now given the above, once a vessel is away from a planet, which produces gravity due to the inertia of the spinning core, the weight of the vessel would seem almost non-existant. This means that once a vessel leaves the gravitational dissapation zone (the zones around a planet or sun where the varrying strengths of gravity occure) of a planet the weight of the vessel would not increase but decrease because there would be less pull on the vessel meaning less weight

Einsteins theory is based on happenings that occure here on Earth and in an atmosphered environemnt. Space is a totally different environment all together.

Once a vessel accerlated away from a planet and went to warp drive the
vessel would most likely weigh less as it left the gravitated field of the planet. Less gravity means less weight, more gravity means more weight.

Gravity is only present in areas of space where solar systems are located or other celestial bodies. After all you need a spining object that has an active core to create a gravitated field. No spining plant or sun, no gravitated field or a pull to create weight on the vessel.

Last time I checked the Universe isn't packed together like sardines so there will thousands of light years where there is not any gravity at all.

No planets or suns or blackholes,pulsars ect no gravity, this is called freespace - an area of space where gravity is not present or is so weak in strength as too not make any mention of.

Mark Friedenbach · 2007-07-18 00:48:14

No.

Gravity is a fundamental property of matter, and (aside from a few very small relativistic effects) has nothing to do with rotating objects. Einstein's theories hold everywhere, not just in atmospheres. Gravity exists everywhere. And physical laws are no different in space than they are here on Earth.

You're right that mass is a fundamental property measured in kilograms, it "increases" when traveling at relativistic speeds, density is mass/volume, and w=mg gives a good approximation of gravity at sea level, which is measured in newtons. There's no kind way to say this, so I'm being blunt: Everything else in your post is nonsense. Go read a book or something on physics. I recommend the MIT video lectures.

John Creighton · 2007-07-29 18:04:37

No.
Gravity is a fundamental property of matter, and (aside from a few very small relativistic effects) has nothing to do with rotating objects. Einstein's theories hold everywhere, not just in atmospheres. Gravity exists everywhere. And physical laws are no different in space than they are here on Earth.
You're right that mass is a fundamental property measured in kilograms, it "increases" when traveling at relativistic speeds, density is mass/volume, and w=mg gives a good approximation of gravity at sea level, which is measured in newtons. There's no kind way to say this, so I'm being blunt: Everything else in your post is nonsense. Go read a book or something on physics. I recommend the MIT video lectures.

Electromagnetism is a fundamental property of charge but for some reason we can do a few more things with it then static cling.

Tom Kalbfus · 2007-08-26 08:48:33

Not supprisingly we have discussed this before to. The disscusion was here.
Even if we do some handwaving and create things such as "exotic matter" and "negative energy" it still does not overcome the fundemental problem with FTL in our relativistic universe, the problem of causality violation and pardox.
All FTL methods of communicaton/travel can cause the grandfather paradox when the situation is right.
An exert describing how and why.
"We can describe this effect by idealizing FTL to be "instantaneous", and describing how the more familar time dilation implies this effect. But remember, the same points apply to any FTL speed, you just have more messy arithmetic to grind through.
Consider a duel with tachyon pistols. Two duelists, A and B, are to stand back to back, then start out at 0.866 lightspeed for 8 seconds, turn, and fire. Tachyon pistol rounds move so fast, they are instantaneous for all practical purposes.
So, the duelists both set out --- at 0.866 lightspeed each relative to the other, so that the time dilation factor is 2 between them. Duelist A counts off 8 lightseconds, turns, and fires. Now, according to A (since in relativity all inertial frames are equally valid) B's the one who's moving, so B's clock is ticking at half-speed. Thus, the tachyon round hits B in the back as B's clock ticks 4 seconds.
Now B (according to relativity) has every right to consider A as moving, and thus, A is the one with the slowed clock. So, as B is hit in the back at tick 4, in outrage at A's firing before 8 seconds are up, B manages to turn and fire before being overcome by his fatal wound. And since in B's frame of reference it's A's clock that ticks slow, B's round hits A, striking A dead instantly, at A's second tick; a full six seconds before A fired the original round. A classic grandfather paradox.

Are we sure that this is what would happen? The Inflation theory of the Universe seems to call for parts of the Universe to expand at faster than the speed of light relative to other parts, this is a spacial expansion, not a velocity, yet if the above holds true then it does not matter. What about a Universe undergoing Deflation? Would that violate any laws of casuality? This would point to a definite time arrow if true because it would mean that all possible universes must always expand and never contract, or perhaps the dimension of time is the direction in which the Universe expands. In order for a Warp Drive to work you need both a theory if Inflation and Deflation. If you can't deflate the space ahead of you, you can't have warp drive.

Nik · 2007-08-26 18:27:06

I don't know if it was an arcane math joke, but I've heard a suggestion that Alcubierre's 'bubble of space' does not need 'exotic matter' if you use a Limacon of Pascal configuration with ship in pocket...

( Something about cancelling unwanted infinities ;- )

Of course, it still leaves the interesting problem of how to make any such bubble...

Um, I suspect Dook has been caught out by magneto-gravitics and frame-dragging. They're real, they require correction for eg GPS but, so far, they are vanishingly small on our familiar mass-scale. Now, were some-one to find a 'giant mg effect'...

Tom Kalbfus · 2007-09-01 08:56:27

Austin Stanley wrote about the twin paradox and how instantaneous travel would short circuit this analysis. You have this situation where both vehicle accelerate away from each other at a common point in space. You have observer A and B. If the time dialation of B from A's point of view is 2 where 2 seconds of A tick for every 1 second of B, then it is resolved in A's favor if B were to slow down and catch up with A matching velocities with A and then we'll find that more time has ticked for A than B. If the reverse were to happen then more time will have ticked for B than A.

If we allow for instantaneous communication between A and B, then we will basically be looking behind the curtain to find out how the Universe does this. Perhaps the time dialiation is the same for both ships relative to the average velocity of both ships. If that is the case then time will tick the same for both ship and if instantaneous communication is introduced then the same amount of time will have elapsed. I'm sure there must be a mathematical treatment that will preserve the apparent "Twin Paradox" and also allow for instantaneous communication and no real paradox were instantaneous communication to be introduced. Just as Newton's equations predicts the behavior of objects moving at low velocities and in low gravitational fields, the Einsteinian equations also make the same predictions under those same conditions, but also predicts the properties of objects in deep gravitational wells and at high velocities relative to light, but even Einstein does not predict the complete properties of the Universe, and there may be conditions where Einstein's equations are superceded just as Newton's were.

The Universe doesn't listen to Einstein, and it does somethings that are sometimes contrary to expected theory. The Universe doesn't have to listen to us, it is we who must modify our mathematics to conform to the universe.

Austin Stanley · 2007-09-04 13:44:02

Tom the problem with your analysis, is that is simply doesn't match the (vast) quantites of evidence we have supporting Special Relativity. In reality either observers frame of refrence is equaly valid for any observer. So what would happen if we introduced instintanious communication bettwen the two ships would be disagreements about the order messages were transmited bettwen the ships (a causality violation). There clocks (or frame of refrence) would not suddenly be in sink, and even if they did, they would then be out of sink with the rest of the universe. Or rather I should say, that not only would there be disagrements about the 'simultaneity' of events (which is allowed) but there would be disagrements about the order in which events happened, ie some information would HAVE to be transmited from the future to the past, causing causality violations.

The reason for this is simple, but with complex consiquences. Again, all observers frame of reference are equaly valid. This means that there is no "universal clock" for the universe, that dictates the timing of events. However, since all observers measure the speed of light to be the same across all reference points. To account for this, some things we had previously assumed as being absolute (mass, time, length) are infact variable from the viewpoint of some observers.

Special Relativity is a complex subject, and its no wonder somepeople can become confused by it (I am myself sometimes), however some time at a Relativity FAQ. Would be well spent. All of you're concurns are addressed here (such as a page on experimental evidence for relativity). Wikipedia also has a fairly good article.[/url]

Tom Kalbfus · 2007-09-04 17:13:16

How then do you explain the Inflation theory of the Universe? Parts of the Universe have had to be traveling faster than the speed of light relative to other parts, otherwise we would live in a universe that adhered to the Special Relativity in all things without exceptions. If Special Relativity were applied across the board with no exceptions we couldn't have an inflationary universe that went from the size of an atom to billions of light years across in a few minutes. That the equations produce contradictory results when you introduce instantaneous communication either indicates that something is impossible or that the theory is flawed as Newtons was about relative motion. Einsteins relativity may be a more accurate description of the universe, but this in now way means that it is the final arbitrator of what is possible. According to Newton's equations, the speed of light ought to be infinite, because if it were infinite then the speed of light would be the same for all observers, but the speed of light is not infinite, it has been observed to be not infinite, so therefore Einstein had to come along and explain how it could not be infinite yet the same for all observers.

Now I am not a mathematician, it is not for me to disprove Einstein, but from past experience, I doubt his theory is the final arbitrator of what is and isn't possible. After all the Universe didn't listen to Newton, so why should it listen to Einstein?

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#26 2005-09-17 16:48:07

Re: WARP DRIVE, AHEM!

#27 2005-09-17 19:59:21

Re: WARP DRIVE, AHEM!

#28 2005-09-18 18:17:42

Re: WARP DRIVE, AHEM!

#29 2005-09-22 00:45:38

Re: WARP DRIVE, AHEM!

#30 2005-09-22 01:11:43

Re: WARP DRIVE, AHEM!

#31 2005-09-23 06:04:57

Re: WARP DRIVE, AHEM!

#32 2005-09-23 14:52:24

Re: WARP DRIVE, AHEM!

#33 2005-09-23 15:11:33

Re: WARP DRIVE, AHEM!

#34 2005-09-24 01:39:46

Re: WARP DRIVE, AHEM!

#35 2005-09-24 01:57:31

Re: WARP DRIVE, AHEM!

#36 2005-09-24 02:11:00

Re: WARP DRIVE, AHEM!

#37 2005-09-24 02:19:51

Re: WARP DRIVE, AHEM!

#38 2005-09-24 02:20:54

Re: WARP DRIVE, AHEM!

#39 2005-11-19 19:54:05

Re: WARP DRIVE, AHEM!

#40 2005-11-20 23:36:07

Re: WARP DRIVE, AHEM!

#41 2007-06-26 16:46:04

Re: WARP DRIVE, AHEM!

#42 2007-06-26 17:54:39

Re: WARP DRIVE, AHEM!

#43 2007-07-17 20:22:06

Re: WARP DRIVE, AHEM!

#44 2007-07-18 00:48:14

Re: WARP DRIVE, AHEM!

#45 2007-07-29 18:04:37

Re: WARP DRIVE, AHEM!

#46 2007-08-26 08:48:33

Re: WARP DRIVE, AHEM!

#47 2007-08-26 18:27:06

Re: WARP DRIVE, AHEM!

#48 2007-09-01 08:56:27

Re: WARP DRIVE, AHEM!

#49 2007-09-04 13:44:02

Re: WARP DRIVE, AHEM!

#50 2007-09-04 17:13:16

Re: WARP DRIVE, AHEM!

Board footer