Author Topic: Theoretical FTL  (Read 53224 times)

Offline sghill

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1444
  • United States
  • Liked: 1664
  • Likes Given: 2427
Re: Theoretical FTL
« Reply #100 on: 12/06/2018 01:41 pm »
https://phys.org/news/2018-12-universe-theory-percent-cosmos.html?utm_source=nwletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=daily-nwletter

Scientists at the University of Oxford may have solved one of the biggest questions in modern physics, with a new paper unifying dark matter and dark energy into a single phenomenon: a fluid which possesses 'negative mass." If you were to push a negative mass, it would accelerate towards you. This astonishing new theory may also prove right a prediction that Einstein made 100 years ago.

Sonny White will be pleased to hear this. :>
« Last Edit: 12/06/2018 01:42 pm by sghill »
Bring the thunder!

Online dustinthewind

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 716
  • U.S. of A.
  • Liked: 275
  • Likes Given: 314
Re: Theoretical FTL
« Reply #101 on: 12/07/2018 12:13 am »
https://phys.org/news/2018-12-universe-theory-percent-cosmos.html?utm_source=nwletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=daily-nwletter

Scientists at the University of Oxford may have solved one of the biggest questions in modern physics, with a new paper unifying dark matter and dark energy into a single phenomenon: a fluid which possesses 'negative mass." If you were to push a negative mass, it would accelerate towards you. This astonishing new theory may also prove right a prediction that Einstein made 100 years ago.

Sonny White will be pleased to hear this. :>
Kind of excited myself.  The vacuum seems responsible for superconductivity and I think superfluids.  Electron clouds seem super conductive.  Can be modeled as polarized vacuum osculation modes.  Superconductors also have electron pairing like orbitals.  Lowering their energy state seems key.  The vacuum also represents the lowest energy state. 

When electrons annihilate positrons they also go into the vacuum. I think as they annihilate that one reveals it self to the other as a form of negative energy.  Similar to the virtual particles in Feynman  diagrams that run backward in time.  As they annihilate their electric field stir the vacuum exciting it ensuring energy conservation.  Energy conservation seems inherent. For example in quantum tunneling the particle has a wave function that extends through a barrier. With vacuum noise the particle has a chance to exist on the other side of the barrier within its wavefunction, the noise also defines time I think as in radioactive decay. But when it does tunnel through it seems instantaneous.  This seems to be the case because the negative energy part that goes backward in time can go back and annihilate its previous position making the particle non unique. Similar to what you see Feynman diagrams with some stuff running backward in time.

I think that accelerating electrons while they are in their vacuum state similar to The Mach effect may enhance gravitational wave generation. Think electron pairing along with positrons makes quadrapoles - gravity waves are quadrapole. This suggests that maybe there might be something behind Podkletnov's gravity pulse generator. I think with enough gravitational wave generation, in the way a phased array works, putting them out in one direction, that the vacuum may become modifiable.  Maybe even allowing circumvention of the Lorentz contraction which I suspect is a result of the local vacuum.  Similar to  the Wormhole term in the Mach effect equation with the gravity waves being the rocket part of it - see wikipedia.  Similar to what carries off momentum of rapidly orbiting and orbit decaying black holes via gravity wave generation.

If so superluminal travel may not be impossible.
« Last Edit: 12/07/2018 12:21 am by dustinthewind »

Offline RSE

  • Member
  • Posts: 8
  • Plano, TX
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Theoretical FTL
« Reply #102 on: 12/10/2018 01:44 pm »
For modification of vacuum properties, review the research with Negative permeability/Negative permittivity experimentation, particularly those reaching zero Snell's laws experiments. 

Offline spaceman100

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 123
  • NORTH EUROPE
  • Liked: 8
  • Likes Given: 18
Re: Theoretical FTL
« Reply #103 on: 01/04/2019 04:05 pm »
Miguel Alcubierrre (1994) published a paper that showed that a warp drive is at least mathematically possible, although it would require huge amounts of negative energy. Pfenning and Ford (1997) showed that a warp bubble wall as proposed by Alcubierre would have to be impossibly thin in order to work. Low (1999) showed that a warp in spacetime could travel no faster than the speed of light and that such a warp would require exotic matter (negative energy). Natario (2002) had a little more positive result: he showed that warp drives could be possible in that they wouldnít need to compress spacetime ahead of themselves and stretch it behind in order to move. Lobo and Visser (2004) most recently published on this and they showed that in order for a warp drive to work, a couple of things need to happen:
1.   The spaceship canít travel faster than light
2.   The amount of negative energy must be a significant fraction of the mass of the ship.
As I understand it, a spaceship using a warp drive canít travel faster than light because gravity only travels at the speed of light, and such a ship would be relying on a negative gravitational force generated by the negative energy it is carrying along in its warp of spacetime.

References

The warp drive: hyper-fast travel within general relativity
Miguel Alcubierre
Class. Quantum Grav. 11 No 5 (May 1994) L73-L77

Fundamental limitations on 'warp drive' spacetimes
Francisco S N Lobo and Matt Visser
Class. Quantum Grav. 21 No 24 (21 December 2004) 5871-5892

Speed limits in general relativity
Robert J Low
Class. Quantum Grav. 16 No 2 (February 1999) 543-549

Warp drive with zero expansion
J Natario
Class. Quantum Grav. 19 No 6 (21 March 2002) 1157-1165

The unphysical nature of `warp drive'
M J Pfenning and L H Ford
Class. Quantum Grav. 14 No 7 (July 1997) 1743-1751

Yes I love this video;

Offline WarpTech

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1380
  • Do it!
  • Vista, CA
  • Liked: 1431
  • Likes Given: 1907
Re: Theoretical FTL
« Reply #104 on: 01/05/2019 03:33 pm »
There is this;
The Electromagnetic Quantum Vacuum Warp Drive (see attached)

http://jbis.org.uk/paper.php?p=2015.68.347

and this;
An Engineering Model of Quantum Gravity (see attached)

http://ssi.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/ssi_estes_park_proceedings_201609.pdf

Comments?




Offline meberbs

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1963
  • Liked: 1890
  • Likes Given: 434
Re: Theoretical FTL
« Reply #105 on: 01/12/2019 06:50 pm »
I went through the "engineering model of quantum gravity" paper, and I see a few issues. I am quoting from the conclusion of the paper to provide a starting point for discussion:
Quote
This engineering model firmly establishes a viable solution to quantum gravity for engineers within the standard model of Quantum Electrodynamics.
First there are a couple issues with your claims of this being a theory of "quantum gravity." You make no predictions, and do not even discuss the realms where quantum gravity applies, for example: event horizons of black holes, Planck scale physics, and the potential existence of gravitons. Your only actual use of quantum mechanics is an extended justification of a change of variables in the GR equations. Performing this change of variables does not make it a quantum theory.

Assuming that the confusion caused by the way your theory is named is accidental, what you really sem to be discussing is "an engineering model of general relativity from an alternate perspective inspired by quantum mechanics.  The problem here being that you did not in fact "firmly establish a viable solution." At a minimum you should show how to use your modified theory for practical calculations of things such as the classical tests of GR. Gravitational redshift/time dilation is fairly trivial, so the precession of Mercury or bending of light rays around the sun would be good comparisons to see if your model really makes practical calculations easier. An example with gravitational waves would be a good follow on as well.

Also, to preempt a likely response to what I just said: As far as I can tell you just did a change of variables, without changing the underlying math. In this case (assuming no mistakes), your new formulation is automatically consistent with GR, but the only use for it is if it makes practical calculations easier. If I misunderstood, and you did in fact change the fundamentals of what the math means, that makes reconfirming that you fit the experimental data from tests of GR much more important.

Quote
It opens the door to new innovations that might permit artificial gravity or anti-gravity technologies to be invented. Through the use of stimulated emission, increased or reduced radiative damping, or by amplification of the resonant driving fields that inflate matter to higher ground state energies. Engineers now have a new set of old, familiar tools to work with when thinking about gravity and Metric Engineering [3].
No, it really doesn't open new doors. In the standard perspective GR is viewed from, to get things like warp drives from GR, you need a magic wand to create negative mass (or otherwise to directly curve space by magic) to create the interesting effects. In the perspective you introduce, you simply change this to magically changing fundamental constants such as those that determine the energy states of a hydrogen atom. This if anything seems further from reality, and as an engineer, I find picturing how to use this to create a warp drive less intuitive, than the concept of warping space-time.
 
Quote
What was presented herein puts gravity in the hands of engineers, who could potentially advance such technologies as; warp drive, artificial gravity and anti-gravity, from pure speculation, to achievable endeavors in our lifetime.
There is an implication here (hopefully unintended) that engineers aren't capable of understanding GR the way physicists do which I find a bit offensive. Besides that, as I said above, you did not actually provide a way for any of the things you claim to be done. Engineering is not magic.
« Last Edit: 01/12/2019 06:51 pm by meberbs »

Offline WarpTech

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1380
  • Do it!
  • Vista, CA
  • Liked: 1431
  • Likes Given: 1907
Re: Theoretical FTL
« Reply #106 on: 01/12/2019 08:55 pm »
...
"Also, to preempt a likely response to what I just said: As far as I can tell you just did a change of variables, without changing the underlying math. In this case (assuming no mistakes), your new formulation is automatically consistent with GR,..."

No offense intended. I chalk it up to life experiences. I've only ever met a handful of engineers who even attempted to understand the mathematics and nuances of GR, and of them, I'm the best, which isn't saying much. So yeah, "most" engineers I've conversed with are not at that level in my experience, and simply find the topic an interesting curiosity. If you're an engineer, and given your understanding of GR, that makes "2", you and Hal Puthoff are unique in my experience.

As far as tests of GR go, the radial solution is identical, therefore all of the tests that use that are identical. Hal Puthoff shows this in his papers. I have no need to reproduce his work. My point is to convey the difference in the "interpretation" of what we are observing, not that GR is in any way wrong. Just an alternative interpretation of the data.

As far as this engineering model being useful; I don't know how to engineer devices to make this work, but getting more engineers to think about this alternate interpretation is precisely how to get more minds working on that problem. How I understand it is, "Gravity" is the result of a loss of energy that causes matter to condense and oscillation frequencies to slow down. I attribute this to damping. Finding a means to increase damping would be the key to creating artificial gravity.

Alternatively, reducing damping and driving the oscillations with a source of energy would cause matter to inflate, and oscillation frequencies to speed up. This leads to volume increasing much faster than energy content, reducing the energy density of matter (like a hot air balloon). Which is mathematically equivalent to adding a "negative" energy density to positive energy density matter. This is the key to creating anti-gravity, warp drives and worm holes.

"How" to do it, I don't know, but when looking at the problem from this perspective, it puts it in the realm of the Standard Model where someday, someone, may come up with a means of doing these things. I'd just like to get more people to realize there is this alternate interpretation that puts things in a different perspective.
« Last Edit: 01/13/2019 01:46 pm by WarpTech »

Offline meberbs

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1963
  • Liked: 1890
  • Likes Given: 434
Re: Theoretical FTL
« Reply #107 on: 01/14/2019 12:33 am »
...
"Also, to preempt a likely response to what I just said: As far as I can tell you just did a change of variables, without changing the underlying math. In this case (assuming no mistakes), your new formulation is automatically consistent with GR,..."

No offense intended. I chalk it up to life experiences. I've only ever met a handful of engineers who even attempted to understand the mathematics and nuances of GR, and of them, I'm the best, which isn't saying much. So yeah, "most" engineers I've conversed with are not at that level in my experience, and simply find the topic an interesting curiosity. If you're an engineer, and given your understanding of GR, that makes "2", you and Hal Puthoff are unique in my experience.
...
No problem, I didn't think you intended any offense, but wanted to clarify.

I think for most engineers, the reason for the lack of understanding of GR is just that it is irrelevant for nearly any current engineering  job. Short of designing a gravitational wave detector, or extremely accurate interplanetary trajectories, it just doesn't come up. (As you mentioned, time dilation for navigation satellites is relatively trivial, and requires no deep understanding.) I do know of engineers who took GR in college (I took the relevant math in college, but have slowly been studying GR on my own.) So there are certainly other engineers out there who understand it better than me. (Although as far as I know, none of them actually make use of the GR they learned, they went in different directions for their careers.)

As to the purpose of your paper, while I would reword your conclusion, I don't think I have any disagreement with you on the technical issues based on your response. Personally I don't see anything in your version that particularly helps, but especially for an engineering model, it doesn't matter if it represents how things actually work, as long as it gets you correct answers. I have no complaints about alternate equivalent models, they often can be helpful. (Quantum mechanics is a good example, where there are multiple interpretations with no known difference between them, so you can use whichever one is easiest for you, or is easiest to comprehend for a specific problem.)

In the case of your model, while it doesn't help me personally, maybe it would be useful to someone else. As far as I am concerned, your model basically gives us a different perspective on a bolt we would like to turn. While that could be helpful, it doesn't do much to address the main problem: that we don't have a wrench capable of turning that bolt.

Offline WarpTech

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1380
  • Do it!
  • Vista, CA
  • Liked: 1431
  • Likes Given: 1907
Re: Theoretical FTL
« Reply #108 on: 02/15/2019 03:24 am »
This is pre-requisite for the warp drive paper I posted. This is the basis for the model, as presented by the master himself.



Enjoy!

Tags: