Spacewarp: Relaxing the distances; Breaking the frontiers

mansouryar · 2008-01-27 11:01:18

How would be the ramifications? :?:

cIclops · 2008-01-27 12:16:12

Hello mansouryar,

Ramifications for what?

Terraformer · 2008-01-27 12:28:49

If FTL works? Only that Einstiens wrong, and with him, our entire physics base is flawed. So not much.

mansouryar · 2008-01-27 19:20:37

Einstein’s General Relativity Theory does not forbid FTL travels by wormholes, warp drives, etc. The related physics is rational.

mansouryar · 2008-01-27 19:26:46

Hello mansouryar,
Ramifications for what?

Hello cIclops,

Ramifications of realizing the traversable spacewarp!

http://extremetechnology.blogspot.com/2 … ewarp.html

cIclops · 2008-01-28 13:04:53

Ramifications of realizing the traversable spacewarp!

Time travel of course!

mansouryar · 2008-01-28 15:53:40

I ask you please disregard this item. There are strong physical reasons against converting that configuration into a time machine. Please note to its name: spacewarp, not spacetime-warp. Please consider only reducing the physical distance, not affecting on flow of time. This interview might be cool to you: 8)

http://www.americanantigravity.com/arti … Page1.html

JoshNH4H · 2008-01-28 15:59:56

has anyone ever read any books about galactic commonwealths? That's what we'd be talking about if we had wormholes. Not to mention that if we developed them tomorrow, we would be on mars the next day.l

cIclops · 2008-01-28 17:02:44

I ask you please disregard this item. There are strong physical reasons against converting that configuration into a time machine. Please note to its name: spacewarp, not spacetime-warp.

Can you summarize your ideas please. Is it based on the Casimir effect?

mansouryar · 2008-01-28 19:19:03

jumpboy11j,

Yes. By means of traversable wormholes, going to Mars would be as easy as going to the near street or the upper floor in a building. The red planet would be in our fist!

mansouryar · 2008-01-28 19:27:02

Can you summarize your ideas please. Is it based on the Casimir effect?

Yes it is. Please see this as a summary:

http://www.centauri-dreams.org/?p=561

This article says more about the required energy discussion:

http://www.scientificarabian.com/spacewarp.html

Also, this one does the same for the geometry discussion:

http://www.scientificblogging.com/manso … a_stargate

Feel free to ask more if the above info is not enough.

cIclops · 2008-01-29 00:09:12

For readers with PhDs in GR physics here's Mansouryar's paper (last revised 2 Jan 2006)

mansouryar · 2008-01-29 04:49:01

Thanks cIclops. And for the readers who doubt on its validity, here is four peer-reviewed citations of that paper, by seven physicists: 8)

http://www.slac.stanford.edu/spires/fin … QC/0511086

noosfractal · 2008-01-29 06:01:45

Hey that's really cool. I hope you get funded and are able to generate lots of negative energy for us 8)

mansouryar · 2008-01-29 12:27:16

Hi noosfractal, thanks for the comment. You mentioned the primary point. Now the question is: How? :?:

JoshNH4H · 2008-01-29 15:14:44

My question is how much energy does this require- to get 1 kg. to the moon, to mars, to 1 ly away etc.

mansouryar · 2008-01-29 17:47:42

There is no numerical reply for your question in the literature. The calculations are excessively complicated and sensitive. However, the qualitative estimations must make you confident of the availability of the plan:

M. Visser, S. Kar, N. Dadhich, "Traversable wormholes with arbitrarily small energy condition violations", Phys. Rev. Lett. 90, 201102 (2003).
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0301003

S. Kar, N. Dadhich, M. Visser, "Quantifying energy condition violations in traversable wormholes"
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0405103

P. K. F. Kuhfittig, "Wormholes supported by small amounts of exotic matter: some corrections"
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0508060

Terraformer · 2008-02-01 14:39:38

For the record, wormholes don't allow FTL.

Can someone paste the arcticle here please?

qraal · 2008-02-01 15:11:38

Hi All

For the record, wormholes don't allow FTL.

Technically, no. But FTL isn't out of the question in GR so long as lightspeed isn't violated locally. So when travelling through a wormhole from A-to-B you don't go FTL at any point along the way, but a distant observer will see things quite differently.

qraal · 2008-02-01 20:47:52

Hi Mansouryar

Your wormhole work is interesting and - in another forum, where the reaction was unreasonable scepticism - you've asked what the implications of wormholes might be. I'd like to put a few thoughts out there.

Firstly, the impact of wormholes will depend on the necessary technology and power-levels. If they're easy to generate and maintain, then the impact will be incredible - I'll elaborate in a moment. If they require lots of energy and are difficult to keep open, then their uses will be much more limited until the energy problem is solved.

Secondly, if wormholes are restricted to being made and connected locally, then moved around at sub-light, they will be useful short-cuts, but the wave-front of human endeavour will expand at sub-light. If wormholes can be projected, or moved via warp-metrics, at FTL speeds then that situation changes totally.

But let's look at the possible uses, starting with direct travel.

To ship a wormhole, assuming it's low-mass, we can attach a rocket to its cage and fire it off - just about any rocket will do, then we can pipe propellant to it via the wormhole. To push a wormhole/rocket combination weighing 1 ton to near lightspeed would take ~ 100,000 tons of propellant - assuming we're using a steam rocket with 3 km/s exhaust velocity. That water is a lake a hectare in area and ten metres deep. A cubic kilometre of water lets us move ~ 10,000 tons, or 10,000 wormholes. That's enough wormholes for roughly every star within ~ 94 light-years, which would be reached in ~ 127 years at the latest. In about ~ 110,000 years every star in the Galaxy could be linked up via wormhole. Using merely Earth's water - which we wouldn't - the job would be done with just ~ 0.74% of the total.

Assuming a 10 gee rocket we could send a wormhole to Pluto in ~ 5 days. If wormhole maintenance costs are low enough, then we could profitably ship frozen nitrogen and methane from its surface. We could mine hydrogen clathrate from Sedna or some other Inner Oort Cloud object. Or suspend a wormhole mouth via a balloon and funnel hydrogen/helium direct from the Jovians, petrochemicals from Titan's lakes, raw sunlight from Mercury, or - assuming advanced reflective materials - pipe intense sunlight straight from the photosphere of the Sun.

Assuming a wormhole stable against the conditions we could send them into the core of the Sun to cause mixing between the Core and the outer layers, thus increasing the Sun's remaining lifespan 10-fold. The process would take ~ millions of years because the inner regions are very dense, but we're talking billions of years anyway.

The transport implications are complex because we have so few parameters on what wormholes will be possible - there's questions of conservation of momentum and energy when transferring between different points on the Earth or in-space: Will masses moved between planets keep the momentum they had relative to their original position? Does an equal amount of mass need to pass both ways to keep the balance?

Imagine wormholes at different heights in a gravity well - say a mass falls into the lower wormhole then emerges from the upper wormhole aimed at the lower again - would the mass keep gaining energy indefinitely, looping through the holes to ridiculous speeds? Would that drain energy from the wormholes instead? Do you have answers to these questions Mansouryar?

Terraformer · 2008-02-02 07:00:39

Glad to see at least some physicists are taking wormholes seriously. Have you thought about wormholes that already exists? According to one Physicist, they would give of 'Negative Enegy', the stuff driving the expansion of the universe, so rapidly expanding areas could hide them. If so, one wormhole might be enough to stablise the others.

The implications for time travel would only occur if the time at one mouth was slowed down to cause a difference in time ewhen brought together again. Another implication could be if you enveloped someone in a wormhole, would you be able to draw it over them and compress them into a sort of disc?

Austin Stanley · 2008-02-03 00:54:05

Hi All
For the record, wormholes don't allow FTL.
Technically, no. But FTL isn't out of the question in GR so long as lightspeed isn't violated locally. So when travelling through a wormhole from A-to-B you don't go FTL at any point along the way, but a distant observer will see things quite differently.

All sorts of methods of FTL travel keep coming up here, and they all seem to end up with the same problem. If they allow information to be transmitted FTL (to some observers) then it is also possible that they transmit information into those observers past, causing causality violations. How would this be avoided?

Terraformer · 2008-02-03 06:07:13

Oh, and qraal, if it was on a loop like the one you mentioned, it wouldn't keep gaining energy indefinately. On Earth it would hit 37 m/s then stop accelerating. What we might be able to do is to xract free enrgy from it, as once we extract energy the object would accelerate under gravity again. Any answers for that Mansouryar?

Hmmm... if I had one end of a wormhole with me and piloted into a black hole, saw what it was like beyond the event horizan, then hopped through the wormhole back to a safe distance, I wonder what would happen? Would the wormhole be destroyed, or would the black hole travel through the Wormhole and destroy wherever the other mouth was?

mansouryar · 2008-02-03 15:31:02

For the record, wormholes don't allow FTL.

Yes they do. Please read these carefully:

M. Morris, K. Thorne, “Wormholes in spacetime and their use for interstellar travel: a tool for teaching general relativity” Am. J. Phys. 56, 395 (1988).

M. Visser, Lorentzian Wormholes: from Einstein to Hawking (American Institute of Physics Press, New York, 1995).

But FTL isn't out of the question in GR so long as lightspeed isn't violated locally. So when travelling through a wormhole from A-to-B you don't go FTL at any point along the way, but a distant observer will see things quite differently.

Yes; we are talking about the difference between the local velocity of moving, and the “effective velocity” of a passenger.

mansouryar · 2008-02-03 15:39:20

Glad to see at least some physicists are taking wormholes seriously. Have you thought about wormholes that already exists? According to one Physicist, they would give of 'Negative Enegy', the stuff driving the expansion of the universe, so rapidly expanding areas could hide them. If so, one wormhole might be enough to stablise the others.
The implications for time travel would only occur if the time at one mouth was slowed down to cause a difference in time ewhen brought together again. Another implication could be if you enveloped someone in a wormhole, would you be able to draw it over them and compress them into a sort of disc?

This is not an unknown field of research. Look at this list of published papers having the word “wormhole” in their abstracts, from 1992-2008:

http://arxiv.org/find/gr-qc/1/abs:+worm … r_page=100

For a layman introduction, see these essays:

http://www.npl.washington.edu/AV/altvw33.html
http://www.npl.washington.edu/AV/altvw39.html
http://www.npl.washington.edu/AV/altvw53.html
http://www.npl.washington.edu/AV/altvw69.html
http://www.npl.washington.edu/AV/altvw103.html
http://www.analogsf.com/0505/altview.shtml

If they allow information to be transmitted FTL (to some observers) then it is also possible that they transmit information into those observers past, causing causality violations. How would this be avoided?

Indeed, the information in my framework can be sent with FTL speed. Also, a combination of the Hawking chronology protection conjecture, along with the Novikov consistency conjecture would prevent the formation of a time machine and causality violation out of a wormhole system IMO.

*********************

Hi qraal. Expect another reply soon ...

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2008-01-27 11:01:18

Re: Spacewarp: Relaxing the distances; Breaking the frontiers

#2 2008-01-27 12:16:12

Re: Spacewarp: Relaxing the distances; Breaking the frontiers

#3 2008-01-27 12:28:49

Re: Spacewarp: Relaxing the distances; Breaking the frontiers

#4 2008-01-27 19:20:37

Re: Spacewarp: Relaxing the distances; Breaking the frontiers

#5 2008-01-27 19:26:46

Re: Spacewarp: Relaxing the distances; Breaking the frontiers

#6 2008-01-28 13:04:53

Re: Spacewarp: Relaxing the distances; Breaking the frontiers

#7 2008-01-28 15:53:40

Re: Spacewarp: Relaxing the distances; Breaking the frontiers

#8 2008-01-28 15:59:56

Re: Spacewarp: Relaxing the distances; Breaking the frontiers

#9 2008-01-28 17:02:44

Re: Spacewarp: Relaxing the distances; Breaking the frontiers

#10 2008-01-28 19:19:03

Re: Spacewarp: Relaxing the distances; Breaking the frontiers

#11 2008-01-28 19:27:02

Re: Spacewarp: Relaxing the distances; Breaking the frontiers

#12 2008-01-29 00:09:12

Re: Spacewarp: Relaxing the distances; Breaking the frontiers

#13 2008-01-29 04:49:01

Re: Spacewarp: Relaxing the distances; Breaking the frontiers

#14 2008-01-29 06:01:45

Re: Spacewarp: Relaxing the distances; Breaking the frontiers

#15 2008-01-29 12:27:16

Re: Spacewarp: Relaxing the distances; Breaking the frontiers

#16 2008-01-29 15:14:44

Re: Spacewarp: Relaxing the distances; Breaking the frontiers

#17 2008-01-29 17:47:42

Re: Spacewarp: Relaxing the distances; Breaking the frontiers

#18 2008-02-01 14:39:38

Re: Spacewarp: Relaxing the distances; Breaking the frontiers

#19 2008-02-01 15:11:38

Re: Spacewarp: Relaxing the distances; Breaking the frontiers

#20 2008-02-01 20:47:52

Re: Spacewarp: Relaxing the distances; Breaking the frontiers

#21 2008-02-02 07:00:39

Re: Spacewarp: Relaxing the distances; Breaking the frontiers

#22 2008-02-03 00:54:05

Re: Spacewarp: Relaxing the distances; Breaking the frontiers

#23 2008-02-03 06:07:13

Re: Spacewarp: Relaxing the distances; Breaking the frontiers

#24 2008-02-03 15:31:02

Re: Spacewarp: Relaxing the distances; Breaking the frontiers

#25 2008-02-03 15:39:20

Re: Spacewarp: Relaxing the distances; Breaking the frontiers

Board footer