Dynaverse.net
Off Topic => Engineering => Topic started by: Stormbringer on October 04, 2005, 02:40:05 am
-
http://www.npl.washington.edu/AV/altvw99.html
The Micro-Warp Drive
by John G. Cramer
Alternate View Column AV-99
Keywords: Alcubierre warp drive, superluminal, faster than light travel, space warp, general realtivity, Van Den Broeck metric
Published in the February-2000 issue of Analog Science Fiction & Fact Magazine;
This column was written and submitted 08/15/99 and is copyrighted ©1999 by John G. Cramer.
All rights reserved. No part may be reproduced in any form without
the explicit permission of the author.
This page now has an access count of:
A recent breakthrough has moved the concept of a "warp drive" another step along its path from a fictional SF prop-idea to a well founded physics concept that might one day be realized. This improvement on the Alcubierre warp drive was devised by general relativity theorist Chris Van Den Broeck of the Catholic University of Leuven in Belgium. He has eliminated seemingly insurmountable problems with the Alcubierre warp-drive scheme. His improvement employs topological gymnastics to keep the interior of the warp bubble large while making its external surface very small. But before describing Van Den Broeck’s work, I’ll summarize the Alcubierre warp drive concept itself, first featured in my column (#81) in the November-‘96 Analog.
Until 1994 a "warp drive" was one of the myths of science fiction, a rubber-science concept used principally to permit space-opera heroes to flit from one star system to another at faster-than-light speeds, moving the plot forward in the process. Those familiar with the laws of physics saw the warp drive as a flagrant violation of the principles of special relativity, conservation of energy, and physics-as-we-know-it. It was tolerated as an excessive but perhaps necessary use of literary license by SF authors.
The status of the warp drive changed dramatically in 1994, when Dr. Miguel Alcubierre published a paper entitled "The Warp Drive: hyper-fast travel within general relativity" in the journal Classical and Quantum Gravity. Alcubierre is a theoretical physicist from Mexico who in 1994 was working at the University of Wales and is now at the Albert Einstein Institute in Potsdam, Germany. Also a fan of SF, he was steeped in the SF tradition and turned his physics expertise to the task of considering how a warp drive might be constructed within the restrictions of general relativity, our present "standard model" of gravity. Alcubierre constructed a "metric", a mathematical specification of the curvature of space-time that had all the characteristics of a SF warp-drive including the capability for faster-than-light travel. Surprisingly, Alcubierre’s warp-drive metric is a solution of Einstein’s equations of general relativity and is completely consistent with them. Science fiction’s warp drive had been given a consistent theoretical and mathematical basis.
When theoretical physicist use general relativity, their normal procedure is to start with some distribution of massive objects and to calculate the metric describing space-time curvature that such a distribution would produce. Alcubierre reversed this procedure. Without worrying about how it might be formed, he constructed a metric that could transport volume of flat space, perhaps containing a spaceship, at superluminal speed. This was accomplished by placing the volume of flat space inside a "bubble’ of highly curved space, then destroying space in front of the bubble while creating new space behind it. Effectively, the warp bubble is driven forward by creating and annihilating space as if a local Big Bang were occurring at the rear of the space ship while a local Big Crunch was occurring in front of it.
How does Alcubierre’s metric manage to move an object faster than the speed of light? Isn’t that in direct contradiction to Einstein’s special theory of relativity? Actually, no. General relativity treats special relativity as a restricted sub-theory that applies locally to any region of space that is sufficiently small that its curvature can be neglected. General relativity does not forbid faster-than-light travel or communication, but it does require that the local restrictions of special relativity must apply. In other words, light speed is the local speed limit, but the broader context of general relativity may provide ways of circumventing this local statute. One example of this is a wormhole (see my AV columns, Analog 6/89 and 5/90) connecting two widely separated locations in space, say five light-years apart. An object might take a few minutes to move with at low speed through the neck of a wormhole, observing the local speed-limit laws all the way. However, by transiting the wormhole the object has traveled five light years in a few minutes, producing an effective speed of a million times the velocity of light.
Another example of a faster than light phenomenon is the expansion of the universe itself. As the universe expands, new space is created between any two separated objects. The objects may each be at rest in their local space-time, but nevertheless the distance between them may grow at a rate that is much greater than the speed of light. According to the current standard model of cosmology, most of the universe is receding from us at FTL speeds and therefore is completely isolated from us.
Alcubierre’s metric uses an analogous expansion of space to drive the warp bubble forward. However, since the ship within the bubble is at rest in its local space, the occupants will feel no acceleration forces when the forward speed of the bubble changes, nor will they experience the "usual" relativistic effects of mass increase and time dilation. If an Alcubierre warp-drive ship travels 100 light years at 100 times the velocity of light, to both the occupants and outside observers the trip takes one year, no more and no less.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alcubierre’s publication stimulated a flurry of activity among general relativity theorists, who investigated the implications of the new idea, It was found, by himself and others, that Alcubierre’s original warp-drive idea had a number of serious problems. It violated the strong, dominant, and weak energy conditions of general relativity. The net energy of the warp bubble, as it turned out, was extremely large and negative. For example, a warp bubble 100 meters in radius that might contain a space ship of reasonable size would have a net negative energy that was roughly ten times larger in magnitude than the entire (positive) energy of the visible universe. Another problem was that the walls of the bubble would have to be so thin that they could not be constructed with matter, even "collapsed matter" of nuclear density. It was also found that most of the warp bubble is disconnected from a sizable part of the external negative energy region. Therefore, the surface part of the bubble could not be carried along and would have to be continuously generated externally. The drive could not be self-contained or self-operated. These problems have seemed so overwhelming that recent attention has been focused on alternatives like the Krasnikov Tube (see my column #86 in the September-’97 Analog) that might present fewer problems of implementation and control.
Now, however, Dr. Van Den Broeck has proposed an improvement on Alcubierre’s scheme that appears to solve many of its problems. Van Den Broeck observed that most of the undesirable effects of Alcubierre’s drive scale with the volume or surface area of the warp bubble. Therefore, his simple solution is to make the radius of the warp bubble so small that the problems go away. In doing this, he makes use of another trick from general relativity. The interior volume of a region of space bounded by a closed surface, because of space curvature, can be made much larger than the flat-space volume bounded by its surface. In curved space the inside volume of a sphere of radius R can be much greater than 4/3pR3.
The new metric of the Van Den Broeck/Alcubierre warp bubble is like a bulls-eye target with a center (Region 1) surrounded by three concentric rings (Regions 2-4). The central sphere in Region 1 is flat space large enough to hold a spaceship. Region 2 is a spherical shell containing distorted space that connects the large interior volume of Region 1 to an exterior region that is smaller in radius by a factor of 1/a. Region 3 is a transition region of flat space, a spherical shell with a volume much less than that of Region 1. Region 4 is a spherical shell that is Alcubierre’s warp bubble, but now with a very small radius. Van Den Broeck makes the radius of Region 1 about 100 meters, and sets a to 1034, so that Region 4 is only about 3 ´ 10-32 meters in radius. With such a small radius, if the warp bubble travels at 10 times the velocity of light the amount of negative mass-energy it would require is only about –0.06 grams. Even if it travels at 100 times the velocity of light, it would require is only about –56 kilograms of negative mass-energy. Region 2, where the volume of space is compressed from inside to outside also requires a quantity of negative mass-energy, but Van Den Broeck calculates that it is only about –4 grams. These small quantities of negative energy eliminate many of the problems of Alcubierre’s original concept.
However, even with these improvements, there would still be very severe "engineering problems" with any implementation of the scheme. First, although the interior of the warp bubble may be quite spacious, its exterior is only 3 ´ 10-32 meters in radius, mush smaller than a proton and approaching the Planck length (1.62 ´ 10-35 meters) in size. This is close enough to the minimum length-scale of the universe that such a size reduction is doubtful due to quantum effects. Moreover, since the diameter of the warp bubble is many orders of magnitude smaller than a wavelength of visible light (about 4 ´ 10-7 meters) there would be no possibility of seeing out from inside the bubble. Any trip would be a blind one, with no possibility of seeing or steering. Moreover, while the magnitude of energy required to form a warp bubble becomes more reasonable in Van Den Broeck’s warp drive, the energy density requirement remains unphysically large.
And how could our space travelers enter the bubble or exit again at the end of their trip? Van Den Broeck’s calculations indicate that slowing the bubble to a near stop might permit it to be expanded to any desired size. However, such an expansion would decrease the wall thickness, and it is not clear what would happen if the wall thickness became smaller than the Planck length. Van Den Broeck ends his paper by commenting that while the first warp-drive space flight remains a long way off, perhaps it has become slightly less improbable with the new scenario for a warp bubble.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From the point of view of science fiction, even the application of general relativity to create a volume of space that is larger on the inside than on the outside is very appealing. It would, for example, solve the book storage space problem for may of us. Further, I cannot wait until this principle is applied to airplane seats!
Van Den Broeck’s warp drive is a large volume of flat space that is connected to normal space by a tiny "neck". It therefore resembles the more familiar general relativity topologies of wormholes or "baby universes" and perhaps has a similar behavior. This raises the issue of how the neck is prevented from pinching off altogether, isolating our space travelers in a new universe of their own rather than transporting them to a new part of the old one.
I should also comment that these calculations were performed without a proper understanding of the unknown theory-to-be that we call "quantum gravity". A warp bubble with a diameter near the Planck scale will be affected by quantum gravity effects and corrections. In particular, my previous column (12/99 Analog) described the possibility that extra space dimensions affecting gravity may be rolled up into loops about a millimeter in diameter. If this were the case, it would modify general relativity at the millimeter scale and would almost certainly render Van Den Broeck’s metric unachievable.
Thus extra space dimensions might block the path to faster-than-light travel. Ours is certainly an interesting universe, and it grows more interesting as we understand it more fully.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AV Columns On-Line: Electronic reprints of over 100 "The Alternate View" columns by John G. Cramer, all previously published in Analog, are available on-line at the URL: http://www.npl.washington.edu/av. The preprint referenced below can be obtained at: http://xxx.lanl.gov.
References:
General Relativity: C.W. Misner, K.S. Thorne, and J.A. Wheeler, Gravitation, W.H. Freeman (1973).
The Alcubierre Warp Drive: Miguel Alcubierre, Classical and Quantum Gravity, v. 11, L73-L77, (1994).
The Micro-Warp Drive: C. Van Den Broeck, preprint hep-ph/9805217 , LANL Archive, (April 2, 1999).
-
Well, I for one came out of that feeling as if I'd watched one of the more far out epsiodes of Start Trek Voyager, but without the charm of 7 of 9 oozing sex appeal... This Van Den Broek is obviously a brilliant scientist wasting his time on pie in the sky nonsense...
-
As opposed to studying sheep hemeroids or something practical like that?
-
Progress proceeds apace. negative energy is better and better understood. more methods of generating it are being discovered as time goes on. Examples are the Cassimir effect and squeezed light. Methods of reducing the amount needed to create a warp topology are being devised as Van Den Broek proved a few years ago. On the power source side fusion is begining to become more than a research money pit it has been for the last 50 years.
now methods are being suggested to convert ordinary matter mass directly into ant-imatter. the suggested method would presumably also be able to create novel forms of matter as well. and it all hinges on manipulating spatial dimensions.
-
Progress proceeds apace. negative energy is better and better understood. more methods of generating it are being discovered as time goes on. Examples are the Cassimir effect and squeezed light. Methods of reducing the amount needed to create a warp topology are being devised as Van Den Broek proved a few years ago. On the power source side fusion is begining to become more than a research money pit it has been for the last 50 years.
now methods are being suggested to convert ordinary matter mass directly into ant-imatter. the suggested method would presumably also be able to create novel forms of matter as well. and it all hinges on manipulating spatial dimensions.
In other words, it hinges on future generations developing unforeseable technical advances...
-
As opposed to studying sheep hemeroids or something practical like that?
Or how about some other things that were possible but crazy? Or worse, that were just plain nuts? Like sending Joe Kittinger into Space in a Helium baloon before Gagarin or Shepherd? Or breaking the Sound Barrier? Or Near Instantaneous Companded Audio Multiplex? Or the Artificial Pacemaker?
-
Progress proceeds apace. negative energy is better and better understood. more methods of generating it are being discovered as time goes on. Examples are the Cassimir effect and squeezed light. Methods of reducing the amount needed to create a warp topology are being devised as Van Den Broek proved a few years ago. On the power source side fusion is begining to become more than a research money pit it has been for the last 50 years.
now methods are being suggested to convert ordinary matter mass directly into ant-imatter. the suggested method would presumably also be able to create novel forms of matter as well. and it all hinges on manipulating spatial dimensions.
In other words, it hinges on future generations developing unforeseable technical advances...
No offense, but how are we supposed to make those future advances if all the scientists think as you in between here and there?
-
Progress proceeds apace. negative energy is better and better understood. more methods of generating it are being discovered as time goes on. Examples are the Cassimir effect and squeezed light. Methods of reducing the amount needed to create a warp topology are being devised as Van Den Broek proved a few years ago. On the power source side fusion is begining to become more than a research money pit it has been for the last 50 years.
now methods are being suggested to convert ordinary matter mass directly into ant-imatter. the suggested method would presumably also be able to create novel forms of matter as well. and it all hinges on manipulating spatial dimensions.
In other words, it hinges on future generations developing unforeseable technical advances...
In part. But so was generating negative energy a few years ago. Now it is pretty well accepted that it can be done. the quibbling is now over amount and duration. The same process will no doubtably apply to all other obstacles.
EDIT: And I might add that it was not the typical scientist that provided the impulse to mainstream the methods and science of doing it either. it was the same type that put forward the ideas mainstream scientists are poo-pooing now.
-
Progress proceeds apace. negative energy is better and better understood. more methods of generating it are being discovered as time goes on. Examples are the Cassimir effect and squeezed light. Methods of reducing the amount needed to create a warp topology are being devised as Van Den Broek proved a few years ago. On the power source side fusion is begining to become more than a research money pit it has been for the last 50 years.
now methods are being suggested to convert ordinary matter mass directly into ant-imatter. the suggested method would presumably also be able to create novel forms of matter as well. and it all hinges on manipulating spatial dimensions.
In other words, it hinges on future generations developing unforeseable technical advances...
No offense, but how are we supposed to make those future advances if all the scientists think as you in between here and there?
I'm not against advancement or progress, or even profit for that matter in science per se... Only when it goes against human truth, and warp theory certainly does that for time being... It is a useless far out culdesac in the far flung suburbs of acceptable theory... It has no purpose accept the old favourite of mysticism diverting attention from true science to airy fairy rubbish... I know I come across as the ultimate party pooper saying this all the time, but it is important that people forget this kind of garbage...
-
Why?
-
Because it is a diversion taking keen and intelligent minds away from real science onto psuedo religion... Warp Theory does not and cannot have any relevance to the human race... Causality is assured...
Divert the geniuses and the funding to dealing with H5N1 bird flu and we shall all be 100% better off than wasting time on idiocy...
-
Why?
What makes science theory become reality is funding. No Bucks = No Buck Rogers, and spending money on Star Trek esque fantasy should be left to Star Trek esque SF writers... Scientists should stick with science...
-
Really? It cannot have any bearing on humanity at all? that's a rule of the universe or something? science says otherwise. peer reviewed science in the fields of cosmology. electronics engineering, astronomy, physics,... say otherwise. your computer likely has components in it derived from some of those far out theories that can "have no practical application to benefit humanity."
-
Why?
What makes science theory become reality is funding. No Bucks = No Buck Rogers, and spending money on Star Trek esque fantasy should be left to Star Trek esque SF writers... Scientists should stick with science...
again I must ask: How do we take the steps necessary to get there if none of our scientist deign it worthwhile to do so for reasons of alledged practicality?
-
Really? It cannot have any bearing on humanity at all? that's a rule of the universe or something? science says otherwise. peer reviewed science in the fields of cosmology. electronics engineering, astronomy, physics,... say otherwise. your computer likely has components in it derived from some of those far out theories that can "have no practical application to benefit humanity."
I don't recall anyone having to be squeezed into a space time metric with massive surface area but almost zero volume at an energy expenditure so exorbitant that it would turn the area of space time the would be Intel Pentium Technician was occupying into a mushroom cloud big enough to obliterate all the terrestrial planets in order to build your Pentium processor... It's a little different...
-
Scientists said we would never be able to build Lasers suitable for balistic defense. yet here we are. ABL, SBL, THEL, M-THEL, and the liquid cooled refraction matched laser is here. Same for the SM-4 and other kinetic Kill missiles. what is more practical that preventing the nuclear death of millions and the defeat of our nations?
-
Why?
What makes science theory become reality is funding. No Bucks = No Buck Rogers, and spending money on Star Trek esque fantasy should be left to Star Trek esque SF writers... Scientists should stick with science...
again I must ask: How do we take the steps necessary to get there if none of our scientist deign it worthwhile to do so for reasons of alledged practicality?
If you are an ironage man, there is little point in worrying about how to build a laser beam to run CD players, you are far better thinking about how best to build a more efficient blast furnace to make better alloys... Science proceeds on taking things a step at a time and concentrating on what's in front, not in trying to put the cart in front of the horse or run before learning to walk... Advances come in due course... If we learn to warp space without wiping our planet out in the process, all well and good, but that is generations ahead of us, and at the moment utterly pointless tosh... Just as everything HG Wells thought would come to pass or Arthur C Clarke, has panned out differently, so will the ideas we have today... Science fiction writers will come up with the dreams... The time of scientists is best spent in the real world, not on Cloud Nine where glowing fairies are flitting to yonder toadstool...
-
Scientists said we would never be able to build Lasers suitable for balistic defense. yet here we are. ABL, SBL, THEL, M-THEL, and the liquid cooled refraction matched laser is here. Same for the SM-4 and other kinetic Kill missiles. what is more practical that preventing the nuclear death of millions and the defeat of our nations?
That is a matter of opinion. For one, it has yet to be proven to be any use whatsoever, especially if your enemies sail them in and launch them from a cunningly disguised fishing trawler, and for another, the last test of this technology I read of was an embarrassing disaster... Moreover, all the aforementioned scientists said was that the LASER tech didn't exist today...
-
Really? It cannot have any bearing on humanity at all? that's a rule of the universe or something? science says otherwise. peer reviewed science in the fields of cosmology. electronics engineering, astronomy, physics,... say otherwise. your computer likely has components in it derived from some of those far out theories that can "have no practical application to benefit humanity."
I don't recall anyone having to be squeezed into a space time metric with massive surface area but almost zero volume at an energy expenditure so exorbitant that it would turn the area of space time the would be Intel Pentium Technician was occupying into a mushroom cloud big enough to obliterate all the terrestrial planets in order to build your Pentium processor... It's a little different...
We do not know that that requirement will not be bypassed or overcame by some advance similar to how Van DEn Broek's improvement over Alcubierre's work. We do not know that some energy slight of hand cannot produce even that amout of energy yet not have the destructive consequences conventionally accepted. it the same way we think we can do fusion in a glass of deuterium acetone in a popped bubble; the power of the stars is unleashed.
-
Why?
What makes science theory become reality is funding. No Bucks = No Buck Rogers, and spending money on Star Trek esque fantasy should be left to Star Trek esque SF writers... Scientists should stick with science...
again I must ask: How do we take the steps necessary to get there if none of our scientist deign it worthwhile to do so for reasons of alledged practicality?
If you are an ironage man, there is little point in worrying about how to build a laser beam to run CD players, you are far better thinking about how best to build a more efficient blast furnace to make better alloys... Science proceeds on taking things a step at a time and concentrating on what's in front, not in trying to put the cart in front of the horse or run before learning to walk... Advances come in due course... If we learn to warp space without wiping our planet out in the process, all well and good, but that is generations ahead of us, and at the moment utterly pointless tosh... Just as everything HG Wells thought would come to pass or Arthur C Clarke, has panned out differently, so will the ideas we have today... Science fiction writers will come up with the dreams... The time of scientists is best spent in the real world, not on Cloud Nine where glowing fairies are flitting to yonder toadstool...
if that is the case we would have never made it to the iron age let alone out of it.
-
Scientists said we would never be able to build Lasers suitable for balistic defense. yet here we are. ABL, SBL, THEL, M-THEL, and the liquid cooled refraction matched laser is here. Same for the SM-4 and other kinetic Kill missiles. what is more practical that preventing the nuclear death of millions and the defeat of our nations?
Thinking about this, LASER tech wouldn't even be the issue, the issue would be whether you could build an automatic targetting system that could gimbal fast enough to keep up with a missile programmed to make undeterministic course changes, and whether it could defend itself from being taken out by other orbital vehicles, or whether it could target a raghead who is cunnigly disguised as a buisnessman in a suit and tie coming into a country with a very expensive deleivery...
-
Why?
What makes science theory become reality is funding. No Bucks = No Buck Rogers, and spending money on Star Trek esque fantasy should be left to Star Trek esque SF writers... Scientists should stick with science...
again I must ask: How do we take the steps necessary to get there if none of our scientist deign it worthwhile to do so for reasons of alledged practicality?
If you are an ironage man, there is little point in worrying about how to build a laser beam to run CD players, you are far better thinking about how best to build a more efficient blast furnace to make better alloys... Science proceeds on taking things a step at a time and concentrating on what's in front, not in trying to put the cart in front of the horse or run before learning to walk... Advances come in due course... If we learn to warp space without wiping our planet out in the process, all well and good, but that is generations ahead of us, and at the moment utterly pointless tosh... Just as everything HG Wells thought would come to pass or Arthur C Clarke, has panned out differently, so will the ideas we have today... Science fiction writers will come up with the dreams... The time of scientists is best spent in the real world, not on Cloud Nine where glowing fairies are flitting to yonder toadstool...
if that is the case we would have never made it to the iron age let alone out of it.
Every single advance human beings have ever made has been accomplished by looking at the data that is right in front of you... Do you honestly think the apple that fell on Newtons head distracted him from a meditation of Tachyon Warp Drives?
-
Really? It cannot have any bearing on humanity at all? that's a rule of the universe or something? science says otherwise. peer reviewed science in the fields of cosmology. electronics engineering, astronomy, physics,... say otherwise. your computer likely has components in it derived from some of those far out theories that can "have no practical application to benefit humanity."
I don't recall anyone having to be squeezed into a space time metric with massive surface area but almost zero volume at an energy expenditure so exorbitant that it would turn the area of space time the would be Intel Pentium Technician was occupying into a mushroom cloud big enough to obliterate all the terrestrial planets in order to build your Pentium processor... It's a little different...
We do not know that that requirement will not be bypassed or overcame by some advance similar to how Van DEn Broek's improvement over Alcubierre's work. We do not know that some energy slight of hand cannot produce even that amout of energy yet not have the destructive consequences conventionally accepted. it the same way we think we can do fusion in a glass of deuterium acetone in a popped bubble; the power of the stars is unleashed.
More machinery that isn't even at the vapourware stage yet...
-
Scientists said we would never be able to build Lasers suitable for balistic defense. yet here we are. ABL, SBL, THEL, M-THEL, and the liquid cooled refraction matched laser is here. Same for the SM-4 and other kinetic Kill missiles. what is more practical that preventing the nuclear death of millions and the defeat of our nations?
That is a matter of opinion. For one, it has yet to be proven to be any use whatsoever, especially if your enemies sail them in and launch them from a cunningly disguised fishing trawler, and for another, the last test of this technology I read of was an embarrassing disaster... Moreover, all the aforementioned scientists said was that the LASER tech didn't exist today...
Nope. won't protect against fish trawlers. can't do it. It won't do it all so why bother? Except it was not designed to protect us from fish trawlers. we have technologies coming on line to detect problematic fish trawlers and some point in the future we will have a marvel called a torpedo which will stop them in their tracks!
As to embarrassing well. the SBL is already deployed. (in my informed opinion) and the other lements are either deployed or being fielded soon. the SM-4 is fielded on four aegis class cruisers. the ABL is being built all technologies have been validated. the arrow II validated kinetic kill vehicles. the M-THEL has shot down hundreds of rockets mortars and artillery at a range of up to 12 miles. while it was too bulky to be of much use to a highly mobile military the liquid cooled LASER drops that footprint and manning by at least 1/3. putting the concept within reasonable specs for fielding.
-
Scientists said we would never be able to build Lasers suitable for balistic defense. yet here we are. ABL, SBL, THEL, M-THEL, and the liquid cooled refraction matched laser is here. Same for the SM-4 and other kinetic Kill missiles. what is more practical that preventing the nuclear death of millions and the defeat of our nations?
Thinking about this, LASER tech wouldn't even be the issue, the issue would be whether you could build an automatic targetting system that could gimbal fast enough to keep up with a missile programmed to make undeterministic course changes, and whether it could defend itself from being taken out by other orbital vehicles, or whether it could target a raghead who is cunnigly disguised as a buisnessman in a suit and tie coming into a country with a very expensive deleivery...
But lasers were the issue a couple of decades even a few years ago weren't they? As to slewing a laser to keep up with a missile; that is a bit behind the times. the tracking is accomplished only partly by aiming the whole laser. the beam is deflected by optical or em components. this aiming problem is overstated. in fact there have already been shootdowns of missiles in flight by lasers. erratic manuevers by a missile cannot outpace a opic system that need to move less than an arc second to cover a change of thousands of meters at thetarget end of the beam.
-
Scientists said we would never be able to build Lasers suitable for balistic defense. yet here we are. ABL, SBL, THEL, M-THEL, and the liquid cooled refraction matched laser is here. Same for the SM-4 and other kinetic Kill missiles. what is more practical that preventing the nuclear death of millions and the defeat of our nations?
That is a matter of opinion. For one, it has yet to be proven to be any use whatsoever, especially if your enemies sail them in and launch them from a cunningly disguised fishing trawler, and for another, the last test of this technology I read of was an embarrassing disaster... Moreover, all the aforementioned scientists said was that the LASER tech didn't exist today...
Nope. won't protect against fish trawlers. can't do it. It won't do it all so why bother? Except it was not designed to protect us from fish trawlers. we have technologies coming on line to detect problematic fish trawlers and some point in the future we will have a marvel called a torpedo which will stop them in their tracks!
As to embarrassing well. the SBL is already deployed. (in my informed opinion) and the other lements are either deployed or being fielded soon. the SM-4 is fielded on four aegis class cruisers. the ABL is being built all technologies have been validated. the arrow II validated kinetic kill vehicles. the M-THEL has shot down hundreds of rockets mortars and artillery at a range of up to 12 miles. while it was too bulky to be of much use to a highly mobile military the liquid cooled LASER drops that footprint and manning by at least 1/3. putting the concept within reasonable specs for fielding.
Well, you could be right old friend, but I wouldn't like to bet my life on it...
-
Scientists said we would never be able to build Lasers suitable for balistic defense. yet here we are. ABL, SBL, THEL, M-THEL, and the liquid cooled refraction matched laser is here. Same for the SM-4 and other kinetic Kill missiles. what is more practical that preventing the nuclear death of millions and the defeat of our nations?
That is a matter of opinion. For one, it has yet to be proven to be any use whatsoever, especially if your enemies sail them in and launch them from a cunningly disguised fishing trawler, and for another, the last test of this technology I read of was an embarrassing disaster... Moreover, all the aforementioned scientists said was that the LASER tech didn't exist today...
Nope. won't protect against fish trawlers. can't do it. It won't do it all so why bother? Except it was not designed to protect us from fish trawlers. we have technologies coming on line to detect problematic fish trawlers and some point in the future we will have a marvel called a torpedo which will stop them in their tracks!
As to embarrassing well. the SBL is already deployed. (in my informed opinion) and the other lements are either deployed or being fielded soon. the SM-4 is fielded on four aegis class cruisers. the ABL is being built all technologies have been validated. the arrow II validated kinetic kill vehicles. the M-THEL has shot down hundreds of rockets mortars and artillery at a range of up to 12 miles. while it was too bulky to be of much use to a highly mobile military the liquid cooled LASER drops that footprint and manning by at least 1/3. putting the concept within reasonable specs for fielding.
Well, you could be right old friend, but I wouldn't like to bet my life on it...
No one wants to bet thier life on it. to do so means some one has launched a missile with the intent to obliterate millions of human lives. There is always the chance our defenses no matter how good will fail. it would be insane to wish to be placed in that situation. however it would also be insane to choose not to mount a defense against such a possibility.
-
Scientists said we would never be able to build Lasers suitable for balistic defense. yet here we are. ABL, SBL, THEL, M-THEL, and the liquid cooled refraction matched laser is here. Same for the SM-4 and other kinetic Kill missiles. what is more practical that preventing the nuclear death of millions and the defeat of our nations?
Thinking about this, LASER tech wouldn't even be the issue, the issue would be whether you could build an automatic targetting system that could gimbal fast enough to keep up with a missile programmed to make undeterministic course changes, and whether it could defend itself from being taken out by other orbital vehicles, or whether it could target a raghead who is cunnigly disguised as a buisnessman in a suit and tie coming into a country with a very expensive deleivery...
But lasers were the issue a couple of decades even a few years ago weren't they? As to slewing a laser to keep up with a missile; that is a bit behind the times. the tracking is accomplished only partly by aiming the whole laser. the beam is deflected by optical or em components. this aiming problem is overstated. in fact there have already been shootdowns of missiles in flight by lasers. erratic manuevers by a missile cannot outpace a opic system that need to move less than an arc second to cover a change of thousands of meters at thetarget end of the beam.
Maybe... but you can bet some clever boffin somewhere is already thinking of ways to get around the LASER beams... Not that this is really on topic, but I have never seen a missile shot down by a LASER although I'm not disputing it has been done... If I was given the contract to get round this I'd possibly think about firing thousands of damp squibs to escort my live bombs... Or maybe incorporate a fourth gimbal in my missiles and thick layers of protective insulation and send them across in a constant slow barbeque roll with a small resonant yaw...
-
Scientists said we would never be able to build Lasers suitable for balistic defense. yet here we are. ABL, SBL, THEL, M-THEL, and the liquid cooled refraction matched laser is here. Same for the SM-4 and other kinetic Kill missiles. what is more practical that preventing the nuclear death of millions and the defeat of our nations?
That is a matter of opinion. For one, it has yet to be proven to be any use whatsoever, especially if your enemies sail them in and launch them from a cunningly disguised fishing trawler, and for another, the last test of this technology I read of was an embarrassing disaster... Moreover, all the aforementioned scientists said was that the LASER tech didn't exist today...
Nope. won't protect against fish trawlers. can't do it. It won't do it all so why bother? Except it was not designed to protect us from fish trawlers. we have technologies coming on line to detect problematic fish trawlers and some point in the future we will have a marvel called a torpedo which will stop them in their tracks!
As to embarrassing well. the SBL is already deployed. (in my informed opinion) and the other lements are either deployed or being fielded soon. the SM-4 is fielded on four aegis class cruisers. the ABL is being built all technologies have been validated. the arrow II validated kinetic kill vehicles. the M-THEL has shot down hundreds of rockets mortars and artillery at a range of up to 12 miles. while it was too bulky to be of much use to a highly mobile military the liquid cooled LASER drops that footprint and manning by at least 1/3. putting the concept within reasonable specs for fielding.
Well, you could be right old friend, but I wouldn't like to bet my life on it...
No one wants to bet thier life on it. to do so means some one has launched a missile with the intent to obliterate millions of human lives. There is always the chance our defenses no matter how good will fail. it would be insane to wish to be placed in that situation. however it would also be insane to choose not to mount a defense against such a possibility.
I concur, but I don't think powerful LASERS are really unknown Science...
-
Really? It cannot have any bearing on humanity at all? that's a rule of the universe or something? science says otherwise. peer reviewed science in the fields of cosmology. electronics engineering, astronomy, physics,... say otherwise. your computer likely has components in it derived from some of those far out theories that can "have no practical application to benefit humanity."
I don't recall anyone having to be squeezed into a space time metric with massive surface area but almost zero volume at an energy expenditure so exorbitant that it would turn the area of space time the would be Intel Pentium Technician was occupying into a mushroom cloud big enough to obliterate all the terrestrial planets in order to build your Pentium processor... It's a little different...
We do not know that that requirement will not be bypassed or overcame by some advance similar to how Van DEn Broek's improvement over Alcubierre's work. We do not know that some energy slight of hand cannot produce even that amout of energy yet not have the destructive consequences conventionally accepted. it the same way we think we can do fusion in a glass of deuterium acetone in a popped bubble; the power of the stars is unleashed.
More machinery that isn't even at the vapourware stage yet...
Don't be too sure my friend. some of this is within the reach of basement "scientists." How hard is it to get a couple of plates and precision measuring devices to work with casimir force? that is a fundamental building block for the later steps toward fiddling around with dimensional silly putty.
-
Really? It cannot have any bearing on humanity at all? that's a rule of the universe or something? science says otherwise. peer reviewed science in the fields of cosmology. electronics engineering, astronomy, physics,... say otherwise. your computer likely has components in it derived from some of those far out theories that can "have no practical application to benefit humanity."
I don't recall anyone having to be squeezed into a space time metric with massive surface area but almost zero volume at an energy expenditure so exorbitant that it would turn the area of space time the would be Intel Pentium Technician was occupying into a mushroom cloud big enough to obliterate all the terrestrial planets in order to build your Pentium processor... It's a little different...
We do not know that that requirement will not be bypassed or overcame by some advance similar to how Van DEn Broek's improvement over Alcubierre's work. We do not know that some energy slight of hand cannot produce even that amout of energy yet not have the destructive consequences conventionally accepted. it the same way we think we can do fusion in a glass of deuterium acetone in a popped bubble; the power of the stars is unleashed.
More machinery that isn't even at the vapourware stage yet...
Don't be too sure my friend. some of this is within the reach of basement "scientists." How hard is it to get a couple of plates and precision measuring devices to work with casimir force? that is a fundamental building block for the later steps toward fiddling around with dimensional silly putty.
I wonder what effect this would have on a man... An interesting line of thought I read about in Sci Fi was of a man who unwittingly is caught in a Spacetime Mobius strip, and when he manages to get back to normal reality, notices his wife looked like her mirror image used to... He notices that the whole World is in fact back to front, and everyone else thinks that he is! When he eventually gets hungry and eats, he is killed, because the proteins in the food all have left hand parity, while the proteins in his body now have right hand parity. The food he eats is toxic to him and destroys him... Nobody can figure out why!
I wonder if being caught up in unusual spacetime topology might have more drastic effects that are more imediately apparent?
-
Scientists said we would never be able to build Lasers suitable for balistic defense. yet here we are. ABL, SBL, THEL, M-THEL, and the liquid cooled refraction matched laser is here. Same for the SM-4 and other kinetic Kill missiles. what is more practical that preventing the nuclear death of millions and the defeat of our nations?
Thinking about this, LASER tech wouldn't even be the issue, the issue would be whether you could build an automatic targetting system that could gimbal fast enough to keep up with a missile programmed to make undeterministic course changes, and whether it could defend itself from being taken out by other orbital vehicles, or whether it could target a raghead who is cunnigly disguised as a buisnessman in a suit and tie coming into a country with a very expensive deleivery...
But lasers were the issue a couple of decades even a few years ago weren't they? As to slewing a laser to keep up with a missile; that is a bit behind the times. the tracking is accomplished only partly by aiming the whole laser. the beam is deflected by optical or em components. this aiming problem is overstated. in fact there have already been shootdowns of missiles in flight by lasers. erratic manuevers by a missile cannot outpace a opic system that need to move less than an arc second to cover a change of thousands of meters at thetarget end of the beam.
Maybe... but you can bet some clever boffin somewhere is already thinking of ways to get around the LASER beams... Not that this is really on topic, but I have never seen a missile shot down by a LASER although I'm not disputing it has been done... If I was given the contract to get round this I'd possibly think about firing thousands of damp squibs to escort my live bombs... Or maybe incorporate a fourth gimbal in my missiles and thick layers of protective insulation and send them across in a constant slow barbeque roll with a small resonant yaw...
It is fascinating. several systems have shot down missiles in flieght. the M-THEL has hundres under it's belt. the other on that is unclassified escapes me at the moment. Decoy discrimination has improved vastly. i suppose the easiest way is with passive neutrons but we use lidar, and other multispectrum sensors as well. also there is the fact that a plutonium warhead could almost be detected across half the universe. uranium is a bit more difficult but no doubt already done. plus the defense will have over capacity so that it could hit all the decoys and still get all the real ones if we chose to do it that way. THe SBL can hit 100 targets. there are supposed to be 20 to 40 of them on orbit.
-
Scientists said we would never be able to build Lasers suitable for balistic defense. yet here we are. ABL, SBL, THEL, M-THEL, and the liquid cooled refraction matched laser is here. Same for the SM-4 and other kinetic Kill missiles. what is more practical that preventing the nuclear death of millions and the defeat of our nations?
Thinking about this, LASER tech wouldn't even be the issue, the issue would be whether you could build an automatic targetting system that could gimbal fast enough to keep up with a missile programmed to make undeterministic course changes, and whether it could defend itself from being taken out by other orbital vehicles, or whether it could target a raghead who is cunnigly disguised as a buisnessman in a suit and tie coming into a country with a very expensive deleivery...
But lasers were the issue a couple of decades even a few years ago weren't they? As to slewing a laser to keep up with a missile; that is a bit behind the times. the tracking is accomplished only partly by aiming the whole laser. the beam is deflected by optical or em components. this aiming problem is overstated. in fact there have already been shootdowns of missiles in flight by lasers. erratic manuevers by a missile cannot outpace a opic system that need to move less than an arc second to cover a change of thousands of meters at thetarget end of the beam.
Maybe... but you can bet some clever boffin somewhere is already thinking of ways to get around the LASER beams... Not that this is really on topic, but I have never seen a missile shot down by a LASER although I'm not disputing it has been done... If I was given the contract to get round this I'd possibly think about firing thousands of damp squibs to escort my live bombs... Or maybe incorporate a fourth gimbal in my missiles and thick layers of protective insulation and send them across in a constant slow barbeque roll with a small resonant yaw...
It is fascinating. several systems have shot down missiles in flieght. the M-THEL has hundres under it's belt. the other on that is unclassified escapes me at the moment. Decoy discrimination has improved vastly. i suppose the easiest way is with passive neutrons but we use lidar, and other multispectrum sensors as well. also there is the fact that a plutonium warhead could almost be detected across half the universe. uranium is a bit more difficult but no doubt already done. plus the defense will have over capacity so that it could hit all the decoys and still get all the real ones if we chose to do it that way. THe SBL can hit 100 targets. there are supposed to be 20 to 40 of them on orbit.
That is interesting... If a race is sparked off between more and more effective LASERS and attempts to find LASER resistant materials, some very interesting technology could develope... Imagine a LASER handgun that could strafe across wide areas at lighting speed and didn't require any real aiming!
-
Really? It cannot have any bearing on humanity at all? that's a rule of the universe or something? science says otherwise. peer reviewed science in the fields of cosmology. electronics engineering, astronomy, physics,... say otherwise. your computer likely has components in it derived from some of those far out theories that can "have no practical application to benefit humanity."
I don't recall anyone having to be squeezed into a space time metric with massive surface area but almost zero volume at an energy expenditure so exorbitant that it would turn the area of space time the would be Intel Pentium Technician was occupying into a mushroom cloud big enough to obliterate all the terrestrial planets in order to build your Pentium processor... It's a little different...
We do not know that that requirement will not be bypassed or overcame by some advance similar to how Van DEn Broek's improvement over Alcubierre's work. We do not know that some energy slight of hand cannot produce even that amout of energy yet not have the destructive consequences conventionally accepted. it the same way we think we can do fusion in a glass of deuterium acetone in a popped bubble; the power of the stars is unleashed.
More machinery that isn't even at the vapourware stage yet...
Don't be too sure my friend. some of this is within the reach of basement "scientists." How hard is it to get a couple of plates and precision measuring devices to work with casimir force? that is a fundamental building block for the later steps toward fiddling around with dimensional silly putty.
I wonder what effect this would have on a man... An interesting line of thought I read about in Sci Fi was of a man who unwittingly is caught in a Spacetime Mobius strip, and when he manages to get back to normal reality, notices his wife looked like her mirror image used to... He notices that the whole World is in fact back to front, and everyone else thinks that he is! When he eventually gets hungry and eats, he is killed, because the proteins in the food all have left hand parity, while the proteins in his body now have right hand parity. The food he eats is toxic to him and destroys him... Nobody can figure out why!
I wonder if being caught up in unusual spacetime topology might have more drastic effects that are more imediately apparent?
It might. no way to know. i would certainly not build it and hop through without thourough test articles and animals going through.
-
Scientists said we would never be able to build Lasers suitable for balistic defense. yet here we are. ABL, SBL, THEL, M-THEL, and the liquid cooled refraction matched laser is here. Same for the SM-4 and other kinetic Kill missiles. what is more practical that preventing the nuclear death of millions and the defeat of our nations?
Thinking about this, LASER tech wouldn't even be the issue, the issue would be whether you could build an automatic targetting system that could gimbal fast enough to keep up with a missile programmed to make undeterministic course changes, and whether it could defend itself from being taken out by other orbital vehicles, or whether it could target a raghead who is cunnigly disguised as a buisnessman in a suit and tie coming into a country with a very expensive deleivery...
But lasers were the issue a couple of decades even a few years ago weren't they? As to slewing a laser to keep up with a missile; that is a bit behind the times. the tracking is accomplished only partly by aiming the whole laser. the beam is deflected by optical or em components. this aiming problem is overstated. in fact there have already been shootdowns of missiles in flight by lasers. erratic manuevers by a missile cannot outpace a opic system that need to move less than an arc second to cover a change of thousands of meters at thetarget end of the beam.
Maybe... but you can bet some clever boffin somewhere is already thinking of ways to get around the LASER beams... Not that this is really on topic, but I have never seen a missile shot down by a LASER although I'm not disputing it has been done... If I was given the contract to get round this I'd possibly think about firing thousands of damp squibs to escort my live bombs... Or maybe incorporate a fourth gimbal in my missiles and thick layers of protective insulation and send them across in a constant slow barbeque roll with a small resonant yaw...
It is fascinating. several systems have shot down missiles in flieght. the M-THEL has hundres under it's belt. the other on that is unclassified escapes me at the moment. Decoy discrimination has improved vastly. i suppose the easiest way is with passive neutrons but we use lidar, and other multispectrum sensors as well. also there is the fact that a plutonium warhead could almost be detected across half the universe. uranium is a bit more difficult but no doubt already done. plus the defense will have over capacity so that it could hit all the decoys and still get all the real ones if we chose to do it that way. THe SBL can hit 100 targets. there are supposed to be 20 to 40 of them on orbit.
That is interesting... If a race is sparked off between more and more effective LASERS and attempts to find LASER resistant materials, some very interesting technology could develope...
True. we know ablatives and reflection will not cut it for more pwoerful lasers. cold plasma shields are already being worked on. :)
-
Nor I... Anyhow, it's getting late this side of the pond... It was great talking to you and some intersting stuff has come up... I'll respond to any more posts tomorrow...
-
Same here you you you science conservative you! ;)
-
Same here you you you science conservative you! ;)
Guilty as charged... ;)
-
Some of this Star Trek stuff could happen fairly quickly barring a catastrophe. A war can only speed up research.
-
Yeah.. who needs atomic weapons when you can make mass impact at the speed of light?
WHAM..
-
Why?
What makes science theory become reality is funding. No Bucks = No Buck Rogers, and spending money on Star Trek esque fantasy should be left to Star Trek esque SF writers... Scientists should stick with science...
So let's keep all our money here on Earth? Dump the space program for example? Sure.... and if we had always thought that way, the moon would have a red flag on it, and people in the gulf coast wouldn't have known they were about to have a hurricane turn their home into shredded wheat. This guy working at his computer isn't keeping someone else from looking to solve the Bird flu problem.
-
Why?
What makes science theory become reality is funding. No Bucks = No Buck Rogers, and spending money on Star Trek esque fantasy should be left to Star Trek esque SF writers... Scientists should stick with science...
So let's keep all our money here on Earth? Dump the space program for example? Sure.... and if we had always thought that way, the moon would have a red flag on it, and people in the gulf coast wouldn't have known they were about to have a hurricane turn their home into shredded wheat. This guy working at his computer isn't keeping someone else from looking to solve the Bird flu problem.
I'm all for space exploration, but I don't think that Governments take the need for funding seriously enough... It was because of funding that the USA got to the moon first, although Russia did have a lot of firsts to boast of as well. First man in space, first woman in space, first orbital space station (Salyut), first EVA... When Jim Lovell peformed the first LOI, that turned the tables in terms of lunar exploration, but NASA took a hell of a gamble with this... Neil Armstrong landing on the moon obviously was the nail in the coffin, and the Russians gave up after that, because there was no point in paying exhorbitant amounts of money to come second in a race that was over...
Hell, most people are so disinterested in Space Exploration that they couldn't even tell you anything about the later missions without looking up the NET. Skylab was another magnificent achievement that hardly anyone knows anything about now... Before this, we never really had any reasonable data on the Sun... Most people operate under misconceptions that the first words said on the moon were "tranquility base here the eagle has landed." In actual fact they were "Engine Arm Off, Command Override off, 413 (to tell the AGS that the LEM was grounded) is in."
I don't much care wether the flags planted on the moon are red with a gold sickle and stars or red white and blue stripes. As long as someone is exploring space, I'm all for it and all power to them...
What I meant by that remark was that I see no profit or reason to waste money trying to break the laws of physics... There's real science to be investigated, but most people are far more interested in phasers and beam transporters and warp fields than they are in Pete Conrads pin point landing 200 yards from Surveyor 3 in Apollo 12...
-
as i'm aware most laws of physics aren't really laws, they are still theories that try to explain somthing that happens in nature to the best of human understanding. In fact the only real law in physics is the law of conservation of energy, the rest are theories (at least i'm pretty sure of this). Theories which with more understanding will either be proven to be closer to the what happens in nature, correct to match what happens in nature, or be debunked all together. so your idea on breaking laws of physics... well you can't break somthing that isn't really a law, just a theory... if you do you have just disproved said theory. Now isn't that what good science is all about, proving/disproving theories? could have sworn it was....
-
indeed. in fact these theories are extensions of the work done by the theorists who made the theories he discussed. they are using the tools developed by einstein and the others. Alcubierre, Van den Broek and Krasnikov are using the very tools given to them by those luminaries those developers of what has become the "orthodoxy" of science today.
-
Why?
What makes science theory become reality is funding. No Bucks = No Buck Rogers, and spending money on Star Trek esque fantasy should be left to Star Trek esque SF writers... Scientists should stick with science...
So let's keep all our money here on Earth? Dump the space program for example? Sure.... and if we had always thought that way, the moon would have a red flag on it, and people in the gulf coast wouldn't have known they were about to have a hurricane turn their home into shredded wheat. This guy working at his computer isn't keeping someone else from looking to solve the Bird flu problem.
I'm all for space exploration, but I don't think that Governments take the need for funding seriously enough... It was because of funding that the USA got to the moon first, although Russia did have a lot of firsts to boast of as well. First man in space, first woman in space, first orbital space station (Salyut), first EVA... When Jim Lovell peformed the first LOI, that turned the tables in terms of lunar exploration, but NASA took a hell of a gamble with this... Neil Armstrong landing on the moon obviously was the nail in the coffin, and the Russians gave up after that, because there was no point in paying exhorbitant amounts of money to come second in a race that was over...
Hell, most people are so disinterested in Space Exploration that they couldn't even tell you anything about the later missions without looking up the NET. Skylab was another magnificent achievement that hardly anyone knows anything about now... Before this, we never really had any reasonable data on the Sun... Most people operate under misconceptions that the first words said on the moon were "tranquility base here the eagle has landed." In actual fact they were "Engine Arm Off, Command Override off, 413 (to tell the AGS that the LEM was grounded) is in."
I don't much care wether the flags planted on the moon are red with a gold sickle and stars or red white and blue stripes. As long as someone is exploring space, I'm all for it and all power to them...
What I meant by that remark was that I see no profit or reason to waste money trying to break the laws of physics... There's real science to be investigated, but most people are far more interested in phasers and beam transporters and warp fields than they are in Pete Conrads pin point landing 200 yards from Surveyor 3 in Apollo 12...
You've got a point, and you obviously know your subject. I just think, as I said, that someone trying to push the envelope (obviously just my opinion of what he's doing. You're entitled to your own) a bit and trying to do something that someone else thinks is impossible is a good thing. Oh sure, he could be working on more immediate concerns, but I don't think that he's slowing progress too much. As for which flag sits on the moon, well, a flag is a piece of cloth. But I tend to think that the Soviets would have been more apt to militarize the whole thing. I mean, we put our own flag there, but at the same time, would the Soviets had said "We come in peace for all mankind"? Anyway, that whole thing is academic. Until I get that flux capacitor perfected, noone can go back and change anything anyway... ;D
You do know your subject pretty well, as I said.
-
Microwave ovens and computer technology are byproducts of the space race.
Set your sights on a lofty goal, and the things, the means you devise to get there someone will use them to do something else, like cook food and write better looking papers.
I'd love to see the tech cast-offs of the race to lightspeed!
-
Why?
What makes science theory become reality is funding. No Bucks = No Buck Rogers, and spending money on Star Trek esque fantasy should be left to Star Trek esque SF writers... Scientists should stick with science...
So let's keep all our money here on Earth? Dump the space program for example? Sure.... and if we had always thought that way, the moon would have a red flag on it, and people in the gulf coast wouldn't have known they were about to have a hurricane turn their home into shredded wheat. This guy working at his computer isn't keeping someone else from looking to solve the Bird flu problem.
I'm all for space exploration, but I don't think that Governments take the need for funding seriously enough... It was because of funding that the USA got to the moon first, although Russia did have a lot of firsts to boast of as well. First man in space, first woman in space, first orbital space station (Salyut), first EVA... When Jim Lovell peformed the first LOI, that turned the tables in terms of lunar exploration, but NASA took a hell of a gamble with this... Neil Armstrong landing on the moon obviously was the nail in the coffin, and the Russians gave up after that, because there was no point in paying exhorbitant amounts of money to come second in a race that was over...
Hell, most people are so disinterested in Space Exploration that they couldn't even tell you anything about the later missions without looking up the NET. Skylab was another magnificent achievement that hardly anyone knows anything about now... Before this, we never really had any reasonable data on the Sun... Most people operate under misconceptions that the first words said on the moon were "tranquility base here the eagle has landed." In actual fact they were "Engine Arm Off, Command Override off, 413 (to tell the AGS that the LEM was grounded) is in."
I don't much care wether the flags planted on the moon are red with a gold sickle and stars or red white and blue stripes. As long as someone is exploring space, I'm all for it and all power to them...
What I meant by that remark was that I see no profit or reason to waste money trying to break the laws of physics... There's real science to be investigated, but most people are far more interested in phasers and beam transporters and warp fields than they are in Pete Conrads pin point landing 200 yards from Surveyor 3 in Apollo 12...
You've got a point, and you obviously know your subject. I just think, as I said, that someone trying to push the envelope (obviously just my opinion of what he's doing. You're entitled to your own) a bit and trying to do something that someone else thinks is impossible is a good thing. Oh sure, he could be working on more immediate concerns, but I don't think that he's slowing progress too much. As for which flag sits on the moon, well, a flag is a piece of cloth. But I tend to think that the Soviets would have been more apt to militarize the whole thing. I mean, we put our own flag there, but at the same time, would the Soviets had said "We come in peace for all mankind"? Anyway, that whole thing is academic. Until I get that flux capacitor perfected, noone can go back and change anything anyway... ;D
You do know your subject pretty well, as I said.
HaHa.. If you get the old flux capacitor working, you've got to make sure you find a stylish motor car to put it in... ;)
I've been fascinated with Apollo since I was four years old... I think it's the most amazing thing mankind has done since discovering fire! I've poured over all the mission transcripts, scoured the NET for photo, audio and video footage and technical schematics of the spacecraft and computers... I've got this great simulator http://www.eaglelander3d.com of the LEM which is really just fantastic, and flght tested for realism by Gene Cernan, CDR Apollo 17!!! Passing through certain altitudes triggers recordings of the Commander and Lunar Module pilot to say the words they said at the time, so you really get a feel from the landing through their eyes. As you land the intrepid on the Ocean of Storms, Alan Bean actually shouts the read outs on the instrument pannels to you, and his "There it (the surveyor probe) is! Oh My God! Right down the Middle of the Road!"
Oddly enough, and this is something that a lot of people are surprised at, one of the main reasons the USA got there first was that in the end they were more willing to take risks than the Russians. Apollo 8 was only the second manned test flight of the Saturn V and they immediately went for Lunar Orbit. The British had a huge radio dish at the time, I think the only one available to the Russians capable of tracking an object to the moon, and used to press the Russians on when they were going to send a man up there. "When we can be 100% sure we'll get him back" was the response. In fairness too, the Russians were beset by several mishaps that seem pretty much to have been down to bad luck, and refusal to listen to expert advice on the part of the people in charge. No surprises there...
I do agree with the idea of pushing the envelope, but I guess I'm a doubting Thomas when it comes to ideas like faster than light travel and time travel. I do think the thread about terraforming Mars is interesting though. Although it would be a technological hurdle and a half, I don't see any physical laws against that one...
-
FTL is apparently forbidden for massive (well positive mass) objects. However, there is no speed limit on space time itself moving. therefore (all things being relative ;) ) the same effect as FTL travel is possible. i do not believe that the Causality Ordering Postulate is any more real than Einstein's Cosmological constant was. it is a fudge factor. like Einstein's greatest blunder it too will be discarded.
-
FTL is apparently forbidden for massive (well positive mass) objects. However, there is no speed limit on space time itself moving. therefore (all things being relative ;) ) the same effect as FTL travel is possible. i do not believe that the Causality Ordering Postulate is any more real than Einstein's Cosmological constant was. it is a fudge factor. like Einstein's greatest blunder it too will be discarded.
Actually, if you do a Google search on type Ia Supernovae, you'll see his cosmological constant might not have been a blunder after all...
As for moving space time, once science actually defines what spacetime is, then I'll decide whether I believe it can be moved or not...
-
We already know it can be. frame dragging is real and can not only be found in cosmic proportions but in the laboratory. It is already well established in relativity from time dialation and verfied in atomic clock experiments to such things as the lorentz contraction which i do not recall if it was observationally verified yet except in theory and accelerator experiment.
-
We already know it can be. frame dragging is real and can not only be found in cosmic proportions but in the laboratory. It is already well established in relativity from time dialation and verfied in atomic clock experiments to such things as the lorentz contraction which i do not recall if it was observationally verified yet except in theory and accelerator experiment.
Well, I won't be holding my breath waiting for them to break out the gravtion emitters for a trip to Proxima Centauri... Besides, under the experiment above, the cosmic speed limit holds (no pun intended) fast...
-
We already know it can be. frame dragging is real and can not only be found in cosmic proportions but in the laboratory. It is already well established in relativity from time dialation and verfied in atomic clock experiments to such things as the lorentz contraction which i do not recall if it was observationally verified yet except in theory and accelerator experiment.
Well, I won't be holding my breath waiting for them to break out the gravtion emitters for a trip to Proxima Centauri... Besides, under the experiment above, the cosmic speed limit holds (no pun intended) fast...
that is true however my point was to prove the validity of the concept of manipulating/moving the space time frame which you expressed doubt of.
-
FTL is apparently forbidden for massive (well positive mass) objects. However, there is no speed limit on space time itself moving. therefore (all things being relative ;) ) the same effect as FTL travel is possible. i do not believe that the Causality Ordering Postulate is any more real than Einstein's Cosmological constant was. it is a fudge factor. like Einstein's greatest blunder it too will be discarded.
Actually, if you do a Google search on type Ia Supernovae, you'll see his cosmological constant might not have been a blunder after all...
As for moving space time, once science actually defines what spacetime is, then I'll decide whether I believe it can be moved or not...
i have seen articles on it. but the cosmological constant is only one (and not necessarily the best or correct) explanation for what is observed there.
-
We already know it can be. frame dragging is real and can not only be found in cosmic proportions but in the laboratory. It is already well established in relativity from time dialation and verfied in atomic clock experiments to such things as the lorentz contraction which i do not recall if it was observationally verified yet except in theory and accelerator experiment.
Well, I won't be holding my breath waiting for them to break out the gravtion emitters for a trip to Proxima Centauri... Besides, under the experiment above, the cosmic speed limit holds (no pun intended) fast...
that is true however my point was to prove the validity of the concept of manipulating/moving the space time frame which you expressed doubt of.
I don't doubt that it can be done, and is done, in nature, the Earth is doing it right now, and indeed so are our own bodies on a very tiny scale but I don't think this helps much with faster than light travel, but this is more a case of moving space by warping spacetime, rather than relocating it...
-
FTL is apparently forbidden for massive (well positive mass) objects. However, there is no speed limit on space time itself moving. therefore (all things being relative ;) ) the same effect as FTL travel is possible. i do not believe that the Causality Ordering Postulate is any more real than Einstein's Cosmological constant was. it is a fudge factor. like Einstein's greatest blunder it too will be discarded.
Actually, if you do a Google search on type Ia Supernovae, you'll see his cosmological constant might not have been a blunder after all...
As for moving space time, once science actually defines what spacetime is, then I'll decide whether I believe it can be moved or not...
i have seen articles on it. but the cosmological constant is only one (and not necessarily the best or correct) explanation for what is observed there.
I concur, but either way it's a very interesting line of research. I don't really like the idea of a Universe with no big crunch, since it will inevitably die of old age as the entropy increases and not be regenerated, but the data is pretty hard to argue with... Of course, I haven't felt 100% convinced that there isn't some kind of error in observation in this and that we might be looking at an incomplete picture...
-
but it can. that's what the metrics in the article are about. simply put manipulating space itself so that the traveller surfs along with the space in front contracting and the space in back expanding. if it is possible to grab space, and it is, then it is possible to do this. when the traveller is at rest in a quasi detatched bubble of space time the only thing moving faster than light is the expansion which as you know large parts of our universe are unobservable for that very reason.
-
FTL is apparently forbidden for massive (well positive mass) objects. However, there is no speed limit on space time itself moving. therefore (all things being relative ;) ) the same effect as FTL travel is possible. i do not believe that the Causality Ordering Postulate is any more real than Einstein's Cosmological constant was. it is a fudge factor. like Einstein's greatest blunder it too will be discarded.
Actually, if you do a Google search on type Ia Supernovae, you'll see his cosmological constant might not have been a blunder after all...
As for moving space time, once science actually defines what spacetime is, then I'll decide whether I believe it can be moved or not...
i have seen articles on it. but the cosmological constant is only one (and not necessarily the best or correct) explanation for what is observed there.
I concur, but either way it's a very interesting line of research. I don't really like the idea of a Universe with no big crunch, since it will inevitably die of old age as the entropy increases and not be regenerated, but the data is pretty hard to argue with... Of course, I haven't felt 100% convinced that there isn't some kind of error in observation in this and that we might be looking at an incomplete picture...
Not necessarily in M theory it is quite possible that another creation event will occur.
-
FTL is apparently forbidden for massive (well positive mass) objects. However, there is no speed limit on space time itself moving. therefore (all things being relative ;) ) the same effect as FTL travel is possible. i do not believe that the Causality Ordering Postulate is any more real than Einstein's Cosmological constant was. it is a fudge factor. like Einstein's greatest blunder it too will be discarded.
Actually, if you do a Google search on type Ia Supernovae, you'll see his cosmological constant might not have been a blunder after all...
As for moving space time, once science actually defines what spacetime is, then I'll decide whether I believe it can be moved or not...
i have seen articles on it. but the cosmological constant is only one (and not necessarily the best or correct) explanation for what is observed there.
I concur, but either way it's a very interesting line of research. I don't really like the idea of a Universe with no big crunch, since it will inevitably die of old age as the entropy increases and not be regenerated, but the data is pretty hard to argue with... Of course, I haven't felt 100% convinced that there isn't some kind of error in observation in this and that we might be looking at an incomplete picture...
Not necessarily in M theory it is quite possible that another creation event will occur.
My derision for M-Theory is for another thread... ;)
-
Well hell! one of them thar theories has to be true some time. ;)
-
but it can. that's what the metrics in the article are about. simply put manipulating space itself so that the traveller surfs along with the space in front contracting and the space in back expanding. if it is possible to grab space, and it is, then it is possible to do this. when the traveller is at rest in a quasi detatched bubble of space time the only thing moving faster than light is the expansion which as you know large parts of our universe are unobservable for that very reason.
Actually, the expansion only moves faster than light from the point of view of someone (hypothetically) who is standing observing from outside spacetime... In the spacetime continuum, this paradox is resolved by the mallebility of time, because no particle is moving faster than c with reference to any other particle, and outside the Spacetime continuum, if there is an outside, relativity does not hold sway...
-
Well hell! one of them thar theories has to be true some time. ;)
Here be strings... ;)
-
correct and in the above metrics the traveller is standing still. no G's no inertail mass build up, no violation of universal laws occurs. while in the real space no mass is observed moving FTL. just a swelling of space -local and temporary.
-
Well hell! one of them thar theories has to be true some time. ;)
Here be strings... ;)
strings and m theory are not mutually exclusive. one prediciton of m theory is cosmic strings for which there is preliminary evidence in the form of astronomical observations of an arc of cosmic 2D lensing.
-
Well hell! one of them thar theories has to be true some time. ;)
Here be strings... ;)
strings and m theory are not mutually exclusive. one prediciton of m theory is cosmic strings for which there is preliminary evidence in the form of astronomical observations of an arc of cosmic 2D lensing.
Ah, I was thinking more on Superstrings, which are pretty hard to prove... All we have on them is a botched together Kaluza Klein based mathematical model...
-
correct and in the above metrics the traveller is standing still. no G's no inertail mass build up, no violation of universal laws occurs. while in the real space no mass is observed moving FTL. just a swelling of space -local and temporary.
It all sounds a bit like science fiction to me... Lot's of great sounding techno phrases, but very little in the way of applicable hard fact science... There's the small matter of dragging the devices that do the warping of spacetime along for the ride, and the matter of building the devices with black hole like powers in the first place...
A letter to Luis Villazon's help page in PC Format springs to mind, where someone sent in a stupid question about where to find a CD rom drive for the PC that didn't take time to spin up...
The reply was that he should buy the latest generation of CD drives that use warp field technology to introduce massive curvature to the space time metric around them... The only problem with them is that the CD's you put inthem must be infinitely stiff, therefore they must be infinitely dense, which means if you don't handle them properly, your PC will implode into a black hole...
-
LOL. the moving source thing was a problem with the original alcubierre metric as was for that matter the black hole like powers and need for unobtainably huge amounts of exotic matter; but the susbsequent refinements both of Krasnikov and later Van Den Broek went a long way towards solving many of the objections to the concepts involved. There are still some obstacles but not as many as before. for example the movement problem and the requirement for unobtainably large amounts of exotic matter and unimagineable amounts of energy. of course there is still the problems of accidentally being cutt off from the real universe forever and the problem of entry and exit from the detatched space with it's tiny throat.
-
And the problem of what you might bump into on the other side. If the parallel universes theory is true, you might well pop through to the center of a star in another universe, which would cut your trip rather short.
-
No to mention the fact that a lot of this theorizing is based on unproven speculation...
-
yes.. but we humans specialize in that.
"Man will go where angels fear to tread"
-
yes.. but we humans specialize in that.
"Man will go where angels fear to tread"
But angels are immortal... men get spagettified and go "splat" when they are curled round the tidal forces of a massively distorted spacetime curvature....
-
So, I take it you won't be piloting the first prototype?
-
I don't know... his name IS Prometheus...
-
I don't know... his name IS Prometheus...
And a jaunt to the Sun's corona was quite enough avante garde space travel for me... I'll stick to my LEM simulator for Space Flight and Celestia for faster than light travel... ;)
-
He got that name because he plays so hard that he melts his guitar picks. ;D
-
I've got this bad habit actually of holding them in my mouth when I'm not using them and chewing them to pieces...
-
Best guitar pick you can get: Made from Red Deer antler. They almost never wear out, but still have some flexibility. My father was a banjo picker and he finally stumbled onto making the picks from antlers. Worked great.
-
Best guitar pick you can get: Made from Red Deer antler. They almost never wear out, but still have some flexibility. My father was a banjo picker and he finally stumbled onto making the picks from antlers. Worked great.
Sounds like a great idea... We don't have many dear in this neck of the woods though, so I'd need to import...
-
Best guitar pick you can get: Made from Red Deer antler. They almost never wear out, but still have some flexibility. My father was a banjo picker and he finally stumbled onto making the picks from antlers. Worked great.
Sounds like a great idea... We don't have many dear in this neck of the woods though, so I'd need to import...
you ever try getting a red deer on an airplane? He11 I never made it past the metal detector...
-
You- you- you're Worf's brother!!
I don't know... his name IS Prometheus...
And a jaunt to the Sun's corona was quite enough avante garde space travel for me... I'll stick to my LEM simulator for Space Flight and Celestia for faster than light travel... ;)
-
You- you- you're Worf's brother!!
oh he11 no.... I can't stand Worf. He's kinda girlie for a Klingon. Always worrying about how everyone feels about him.
if that don't start an argument..... ::)
-
oh he11 no.... I can't stand Worf. He's kinda girlie for a Klingon. Always worrying about how everyone feels about him.
if that don't start an argument..... ::)
Not with me. :rwoot:
My comments on TOS vs TNG Klingons from another thread.
TOS Klingons:
Created our own technologies.
Kor defeated Kirk.
Kang took Kirk's ship.
The Romulans were our client state and bought our ships.
To fight us the Federation needed a Kirk
Squashed tribbles as the vermin they are. One does not war on vermin one stamps them out. There is no glory in killing tribbles.
The TNG so called Klingons:
Use Romulan technologies. (cloaks and Birds of Prey)
Use Federation technologies (photon torpedoes)
Have no culture and must steal one from the Earthers (Hamlet)
They hide their so called war ships with cloaks unless they can attack en masse.
They are a client state to the Federation.
They had to have a human choose their chancellor.
Rather than condemn a powerful traitor and face the consequences they chose instead to condemn a weak but innocent warrior.
When two WOMEN rebelled they needed the Federation again to save them from the Rebels and their Romulan weaponeers.
Use the phrase "if you were any other man I'd..." Do it or don't - bluster is not the warrior way.
To control them the Federation only needs a Picard.
Celebrate the Great tribble hunt as a glorious victory.
To me only one Klingon in TNG was cut from the same mold as Kor, Kang and Koloth.
K'Ehleyr and she is half human. Only she fulfilled her duty with no regard for consequences to herself. Worf constantly tried to beg off duties. She traveled in a PROBE because that is what her duty required, Worf complained about 0 g even though he was going to fight the Borg. She turned down a ship and a council seat that were offered to her as bribes. True Klingon not a TNG Klingon. Like a true TOS Klingon she did not respect the Klingons of the TNG era or their traditions.
Can you imagine how Kor or Kang would have handled Q? With Worf's brute force and growling? I think not. Q would not have called one of them "micro brain".
NOTE: Thread Hi-Jack in process :popcorn:
-
oh he11 no.... I can't stand Worf. He's kinda girlie for a Klingon. Always worrying about how everyone feels about him.
if that don't start an argument..... ::)
Not with me. :rwoot:
My comments on TOS vs TNG Klingons from another thread.
TOS Klingons:
Created our own technologies.
Kor defeated Kirk.
Kang took Kirk's ship.
The Romulans were our client state and bought our ships.
To fight us the Federation needed a Kirk
Squashed tribbles as the vermin they are. One does not war on vermin one stamps them out. There is no glory in killing tribbles.
The TNG so called Klingons:
Use Romulan technologies. (cloaks and Birds of Prey)
Use Federation technologies (photon torpedoes)
Have no culture and must steal one from the Earthers (Hamlet)
They hide their so called war ships with cloaks unless they can attack en masse.
They are a client state to the Federation.
They had to have a human choose their chancellor.
Rather than condemn a powerful traitor and face the consequences they chose instead to condemn a weak but innocent warrior.
When two WOMEN rebelled they needed the Federation again to save them from the Rebels and their Romulan weaponeers.
Use the phrase "if you were any other man I'd..." Do it or don't - bluster is not the warrior way.
To control them the Federation only needs a Picard.
Celebrate the Great tribble hunt as a glorious victory.
To me only one Klingon in TNG was cut from the same mold as Kor, Kang and Koloth.
K'Ehleyr and she is half human. Only she fulfilled her duty with no regard for consequences to herself. Worf constantly tried to beg off duties. She traveled in a PROBE because that is what her duty required, Worf complained about 0 g even though he was going to fight the Borg. She turned down a ship and a council seat that were offered to her as bribes. True Klingon not a TNG Klingon. Like a true TOS Klingon she did not respect the Klingons of the TNG era or their traditions.
Can you imagine how Kor or Kang would have handled Q? With Worf's brute force and growling? I think not. Q would not have called one of them "micro brain".
NOTE: Thread Hi-Jack in process :popcorn:
I'm not exactly sure what Kor or Kang could hope to do to Q!
Now that was a great Star Trek villain, and an inspired performance by John De Lancia... In the words of John De Lancia, reading the script for Q reminded him of a quote about Byron. That he was Bad, Mad, and Dangerous to Know...
-
I'm not exactly sure what Kor or Kang could hope to do to Q!
Consider how Worf acted toward Q. Growling and trying physical assaults. Would either Kor or Kang have acted that way toward someone with the power of a Q? Power that Worf was aware of and he did not change his behaviour to be more suitable to the situation.
Kor or Kang would have adapted their behaviour to match the situation. Worf is unable to adapt in the face of an enemy that brute force does not cow and cannot defeat.
-
I'm not exactly sure what Kor or Kang could hope to do to Q!
Consider how Worf acted toward Q. Growling and trying physical assaults. Would either Kor or Kang have acted that way toward someone with the power of a Q? Power that Worf was aware of and he did not change his behaviour to be more suitable to the situation.
Kor or Kang would have adapted their behaviour to match the situation. Worf is unable to adapt in the face of an enemy that brute force does not cow and cannot defeat.
Well, I always thought that Worf's trouble was in being too much of a gentleman as it were... Looking at Klingon ways through rose tinted specs because he didn't live among them... "Klingons do not lie!" "Klingons do not take hostages", and then always being shocked when he found klingons who were as cowardly and weasley as any Ferengi...
-
I'm not exactly sure what Kor or Kang could hope to do to Q!
Consider how Worf acted toward Q. Growling and trying physical assaults. Would either Kor or Kang have acted that way toward someone with the power of a Q? Power that Worf was aware of and he did not change his behaviour to be more suitable to the situation.
Kor or Kang would have adapted their behaviour to match the situation. Worf is unable to adapt in the face of an enemy that brute force does not cow and cannot defeat.
Well, I always thought that Worf's trouble was in being too much of a gentleman as it were... Looking at Klingon ways through rose tinted specs because he didn't live among them... "Klingons do not lie!" "Klingons do not take hostages", and then always being shocked when he found klingons who were as cowardly and weasley as any Ferengi...
And not only that, but he had a Trill wife that was tougher than he was. I liked Kehlyr because when she got mad she shouted and broke things. Klingons never really improved after Kang. Having said that, what does anyone here think of Chang? I played Klingon Academy (still do in fact), and I thought they actually did good by Chang. Opinions?
-
Having said that, what does anyone here think of Chang? I played Klingon Academy (still do in fact), and I thought they actually did good by Chang. Opinions?
Hamlet.
-
Having said that, what does anyone here think of Chang? I played Klingon Academy (still do in fact), and I thought they actually did good by Chang. Opinions?
Hamlet.
That mean you liked it? I sure did. I mean, I liked Chang in Star Trek 6.... despite the comments about Klingons and Shakespeare. But that's probably because I like Shakespeare, and Hamlet was my favorite. So of course I liked it. And KA really added depth to the character. It had like 45 minutes of original footage.... 90% of it had Chang....
-
That mean you liked it? I sure did. I mean, I liked Chang in Star Trek 6.... despite the comments about Klingons and Shakespeare. But that's probably because I like Shakespeare, and Hamlet was my favorite. So of course I liked it. And KA really added depth to the character. It had like 45 minutes of original footage.... 90% of it had Chang....
From my earlier post.
Have no culture and must steal one from the Earthers (Hamlet)
-
That mean you liked it? I sure did. I mean, I liked Chang in Star Trek 6.... despite the comments about Klingons and Shakespeare. But that's probably because I like Shakespeare, and Hamlet was my favorite. So of course I liked it. And KA really added depth to the character. It had like 45 minutes of original footage.... 90% of it had Chang....
From my earlier post.
Have no culture and must steal one from the Earthers (Hamlet)
Oh well.... what's life without a disagreement....
-
I believe the Alcubierre metric is what the "warp field" is. The trick is to create the field from the inside.
Everything related to negative energy could possibly be related to an instance of "subspace", another sci-fi idea that has yet to be discovered. Negative energy existing "below" space just makes sense to me.
-
I believe the Alcubierre metric is what the "warp field" is. The trick is to create the field from the inside.
Everything related to negative energy could possibly be related to an instance of "subspace", another sci-fi idea that has yet to be discovered. Negative energy existing "below" space just makes sense to me.
Or it could be that negative energy doesn't actually exist outside some lovely frilly mathematical models that we've invented... I'd much rather get back to exploring the solar system than waste time on outlandish mysticism...
-
Sorry to be a pseudo-philosipher and not contribute scientific gibberish in the thread, but I'd rather see optimism bashing and crumbling the boundries of pessimism and have Humanity move forward in a bright future. One that might achieve FTL travel, when one realizes there're no limits. You may disagree with me Prometheus, but no way are you changing my mind in your expression of so, assuming it is so and not something else.
It just irks me (is "irk" a word?) when people say "It can't be done." about anything and everything, and seeing how far we've gone to disprove the critics that just can't do anything better than say "We can't."... But then, I'm beginning to stress absoutes in a world where there are fewer absolutes than expected.
-
mysticism.... well since this is a theory based on another theory(relativity) that means relativity must be mysticism... hmmmm. as i have said before we have yet to confirm einstiens theories on relativity and special relativity into laws, and until then anything is possible. there is really one really well known law in physics, the Law of conservation of energy, so as long as whats being suggested don't break that then it works now don't it.
btw, i seem to recall this same thinking when man tried to fly, when man broke the sound barrier, and when man went into space...
-
mysticism.... well since this is a theory based on another theory(relativity) that means relativity must be mysticism... hmmmm. as i have said before we have yet to confirm einstiens theories on relativity and special relativity into laws, and until then anything is possible. there is really one really well known law in physics, the Law of conservation of energy, so as long as whats being suggested don't break that then it works now don't it.
btw, i seem to recall this same thinking when man tried to fly, when man broke the sound barrier, and when man went into space...
There are still people who think the Moon landing was done on a soundstage in Area 51 ::)
-
There are still people who think the Moon landing was done on a soundstage in Area 51 ::)
http://badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html
-
Sorry to be a pseudo-philosipher and not contribute scientific gibberish in the thread, but I'd rather see optimism bashing and crumbling the boundries of pessimism and have Humanity move forward in a bright future. One that might achieve FTL travel, when one realizes there're no limits. You may disagree with me Prometheus, but no way are you changing my mind in your expression of so, assuming it is so and not something else.
It just irks me (is "irk" a word?) when people say "It can't be done." about anything and everything, and seeing how far we've gone to disprove the critics that just can't do anything better than say "We can't."... But then, I'm beginning to stress absoutes in a world where there are fewer absolutes than expected.
I'm not the one who said it can't be done, I just happen to agree with the logic of the man who did... This is not pessimism, it is simply the separation of useful endeavours from fruitless ones... There is a solar system out there that belongs to mankind, and it's waiting to be explored and exploited, and this FTL horsesh*t is a distraction from that...
Everybody loves watching Captain Kirk travel at warp nine to intercept some angry Klingons, but show something infinitely more fascinating, like say, Pete Conrad travelling a quarter million miles to land 200 yards from Surveyor III and everyone complains to the Network that they are missing a repeat of the Lucy Show...
FTL stretches the credibility of even the most liberally speculative scientists to breaking point, and I have no liberal instincts at all when it comes to science... When I was twenty years old, I loved pouring over Kaluza Klein Theories, Many World Interpretations and Faster Than Light Theories etc, but now that I'm older and hopefully a little bit wiser, I've felt that these crazy theories do little or nothing to advance mankind in thought or in action, and that science only works with its feet planted on the ground; that basing future endeavours on outlandish unprovable theories is a regression to Medievel times...
-
mysticism.... well since this is a theory based on another theory(relativity) that means relativity must be mysticism... hmmmm. as i have said before we have yet to confirm einstiens theories on relativity and special relativity into laws, and until then anything is possible. there is really one really well known law in physics, the Law of conservation of energy, so as long as whats being suggested don't break that then it works now don't it.
btw, i seem to recall this same thinking when man tried to fly, when man broke the sound barrier, and when man went into space...
I don't recall any physical law that prevented sound being outtraced, that precluded flying or that stopped men from going into space...
However, I do seem to recall a Scottish physicist and a Swiss-German patent clerk who made some very profound discoveries about the propogation of light and it's implications for time and space as viewed from reference points of variable Delta V...
-
There are still people who think the Moon landing was done on a soundstage in Area 51 ::)
If you quiz these people, they never know anything about the missions...
-
mysticism.... well since this is a theory based on another theory(relativity) that means relativity must be mysticism... hmmmm. as i have said before we have yet to confirm einstiens theories on relativity and special relativity into laws, and until then anything is possible.
Try doing a Google search under Relativity and Caesium clocks... Relativity has resisted many and every attempt to falsify it... Warp Theory has resisted none...
Based on man in the future having conjectural abilities to fold space time into a bubble and then move said bubble blah blah blah... And then to make matters worse, you have to fold spacetime into something akin to a three space and time dimensional mandelbrot set with an absolutely gargantuan surface area to volume ratio... then you're going to have to find a way to slip a living person in and out of this bubble, or create the bubble around them without killing them, and then you are going to have to find a way to make massive energy sources move through warped space at high speed to maintain your bubble... The idea is worse than ludicrous... I'm not being pessimistic here, just applying some basic common sense...
-
http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/bpp/index.htm
NASA Advanced Propulsion Home Page
NASA apparently has a more sensible view of such "useless" "pie in the sky" propulsion efforts.
-
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/glenn/research/warp/socanwe.html
Their words, not mine...
-
Thier words not yours:
We need visionaries to forge science into technical realities
-
just out of curosity prom, how is man kind supposed to advanced if people don't try to tackle these crazy "pie in the sky" ideas? has not every advanced happend because one man dared to dream? Even more, how can the search for knowledge and understanding be fully attained if we just take the straight and narrow path of science and not take all the little side roads that in themselve contain a wealth of knowledge? It seems that if every scientist had your view we would not being flying, we would not have satelites in orbit, we would have never made it to the moon. As you said your view is not based on pessimism (sounds like it at times) but based on the facts present. you forget to include those facts which are unknown, and those facts that will be disproved or corrected.
-
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/glenn/research/warp/warpstat.html
""Why can’t we break the light speed barrier too, what’s the big difference?" It is too soon to tell if the light barrier can be broken, but one thing is certain -- it’s a wholly different problem than breaking the sound barrier. "
hmmm, to soon to tell if we can break to speed of light, hmmm. their words not mine
-
just out of curosity prom, how is man kind supposed to advanced if people don't try to tackle these crazy "pie in the sky" ideas? has not every advanced happend because one man dared to dream? Even more, how can the search for knowledge and understanding be fully attained if we just take the straight and narrow path of science and not take all the little side roads that in themselve contain a wealth of knowledge? It seems that if every scientist had your view we would not being flying, we would not have satelites in orbit, we would have never made it to the moon. As you said your view is not based on pessimism (sounds like it at times) but based on the facts present. you forget to include those facts which are unknown, and those facts that will be disproved or corrected.
Most advances have happened because of practical nuts and bolts thinking... If more people had my view then I can assure we would have done a lot more space exploration, because the people who preferred a repeat of the Lucy Show to Pete Conrad's landing would have been told that unfortunately they were not going to be catered for... Newton was practical studying why objects fall, Maxwell was practical uniting the theories of two common place phenomena, Einstein was practical envisioning a Universe where time was not absolute... Indeed the phenomena these great men who created pardigm shifts in thought and technology studied were common place to the point of ubiquity... Your orbital maths that you gave me a hand with are the same, good solid matter of fact science...
In the words of Dave Scott, there's a fundamental truth to our nature, man must explore, and we always will make new innovations and discoveries, but I don't see why saying we will never breach lightspeed is pessimistic... I don't believe I'll ever be able to turn myself into a seagull and fly off for a jaunt to the Ailsa Craig either, I don't see how that makes me a pessimist?
-
[url]http://www.nasa.gov/centers/glenn/research/warp/warpstat.html[/url]
""Why can’t we break the light speed barrier too, what’s the big difference?" It is too soon to tell if the light barrier can be broken, but one thing is certain -- it’s a wholly different problem than breaking the sound barrier. "
hmmm, to soon to tell if we can break to speed of light, hmmm. their words not mine
Well there's the fact that mass isn't infinite and time doesn't slow to a stand still at the speed of sound... That makes breaking it a little easier...
-
Thier words not yours:
We need visionaries to forge science into technical realities
I concur 100%...
-
see this is where i think we differ. i consider these theories at the fore front of human thinking. And i don't see them as impossibiliites or even as things likely never to happen. I have faith that human endevours will allow us to do anything we dare dream of as long as we have dreamers out there willing to put forth the effort to make such things reality. And further, like you said, relativity is a very sound theory. and to me that doesn't mean we shouldn't at least try to fully understand it or disprove it, but the opposite as it should be encouragement to show us that by further pushing and proding will take our understanding to new levels. this theory is such pushing and proding because even when proved wrong it has expanded human understanding (its been said you learn more from bad examples than of good ones) and in the end thats all science is there for. its those baby steps that lead to somthing fantastic.
-
see this is where i think we differ. i consider these theories at the fore front of human thinking. And i don't see them as impossibiliites or even as things likely never to happen. I have faith that human endevours will allow us to do anything we dare dream of as long as we have dreamers out there willing to put forth the effort to make such things reality. And further, like you said, relativity is a very sound theory. and to me that doesn't mean we shouldn't at least try to fully understand it or disprove it, but the opposite as it should be encouragement to show us that by further pushing and proding will take our understanding to new levels. this theory is such pushing and proding because even when proved wrong it has expanded human understanding (its been said you learn more from bad examples than of good ones) and in the end thats all science is there for. its those baby steps that lead to somthing fantastic.
I understand this and I agree with it in a lot of cases, where I lose my enthusiasm is when you get to stuff like Kaluza Klein variants with 5, 10, 18, 26 dimensions, like superstring theory for example, that a clever man has to specialise in for years to follow the maths of, and the whole thing could be based on a completely false premise in the first place, and your man has just wasted his prime years on nothing...
-
If you ask me, that's just like saying man can't fly because someone invented some giant replica bird wings and tried flapping in the sky and yet just fell out of the sky and accomplished only getting a headache, with the man saying "It can't be done." And yet, the Wright Brothers proved us wrong over a century ago. If you ask me, FTL drive may be a different can of worms than just getting off the ground and into the sky, but what makes you think we still can't do it, ever? Sure, we probably might not do it in our lifetimes, but please, justify the pessimism in your statements; I may not be an expert in science babble, but I'm still as yet not convinced.
(Again with the absolutes, Mr. Johnson... *sigh* *hits head* Doh!)
-
If you ask me, that's just like saying man can't fly because someone invented some giant replica bird wings and tried flapping in the sky and yet just fell out of the sky and accomplished only getting a headache, with the man saying "It can't be done." And yet, the Wright Brothers proved us wrong over a century ago. If you ask me, FTL drive may be a different can of worms than just getting off the ground and into the sky, but what makes you think we still can't do it, ever? Sure, we probably might not do it in our lifetimes, but please, justify the pessimism in your statements; I may not be an expert in science babble, but I'm still as yet not convinced.
(Again with the absolutes, Mr. Johnson... *sigh* *hits head* Doh!)
At the speed of light, mass is infinite and time comes to a stand still.... This means that when you try to traverse the light barrier, not only will every computer on board the ship including the human brains of the pilots cease to function, but the area of spacetime the ship and it's surroundings are in will collapse into a black hole...
Or, to use stormbringers method, you have to twist spacetime into some kind of Spacetime Mandelbrot set that encompasses you and your spacecraft and move space and time itself across the void, oh yeah, and again you have to be bloody careful that the spacetime around you doesn't implode into a black hole or or that the space time metric doesn't undergo some bizarre shift in 4 dimensional tidal forces that rip you apart...
I love watching episodes of Start Trek, particularly any involving T'pol or 7 of 9, as much as the next person, but you must admit, this is a pretty stern obstacle course...
And please, I am not pessimisstic... Frankly, even if we could, I really don't see how travelling faster in light is going to make mankind happier or healthier in any way... Hell, I'm happy as a pig in sh*t and I haven't left my own town in the last eight weeks...
And another thing, don't you think it's a bit pathetic to remove (not that I care) two Karma points in eighteen hours from someone who's only offense towards you is not believing in the possibility of FTL space travel?
-
You think that's bad? someone got me at a time when i had not posted anything political for days. in advance i have not neged anyone in the last several months perhaps since i first got back into posting here at dyna. As a mod i could find out who it was that dinged me with ease but i have not bothered. it's just not important to me.
now I'll admit coaxial nested artificial space times is a bit complicated but there are other more scientifically fanciful schemes to get around the FTL limit. quantum tunneling (in series) over macroscopic lengths, tachyons, exotic materials with negative mass, gravity drives and so on. there is almost no scientific backing for most of them whereas there is some for mucking about with space-time. for example inertial framedragging has been verified using laser traps and slowed light. thus space time can be "grabbed" and folded spindled or mutilated. it is just a question of how much and is it ultimately useful for what we think it is.
-
see this is where i think we differ. i consider these theories at the fore front of human thinking. And i don't see them as impossibiliites or even as things likely never to happen. I have faith that human endevours will allow us to do anything we dare dream of as long as we have dreamers out there willing to put forth the effort to make such things reality. And further, like you said, relativity is a very sound theory. and to me that doesn't mean we shouldn't at least try to fully understand it or disprove it, but the opposite as it should be encouragement to show us that by further pushing and proding will take our understanding to new levels. this theory is such pushing and proding because even when proved wrong it has expanded human understanding (its been said you learn more from bad examples than of good ones) and in the end thats all science is there for. its those baby steps that lead to somthing fantastic.
I understand this and I agree with it in a lot of cases, where I lose my enthusiasm is when you get to stuff like Kaluza Klein variants with 5, 10, 18, 26 dimensions, like superstring theory for example, that a clever man has to specialise in for years to follow the maths of, and the whole thing could be based on a completely false premise in the first place, and your man has just wasted his prime years on nothing...
you realise how kepler's laws were formed? by another mans work who died before he could do anything w/ it (granted brahe couldn't do math worth shyt but its an example) and who literally wasted his life tracking stars. galileo thought that the earth wasn't the center of universe (and he did shyt loads more than that) but in that time he was declared a hertic and would have been thought of as wasting his life for nothing. So in my view a man whos research may be proved wrong will undoubtly help another man in the end find the correct solution as it eliminates a wrong route.
btw i haven't neg ya.
-
+1 for prom coming up. i told you in pm the other day i do not hold your views against you. if i was upset i would not engage in the discussion or if i did back before i was a mod you'd certainly not have to guess about it. ;)
-
see this is where i think we differ. i consider these theories at the fore front of human thinking. And i don't see them as impossibiliites or even as things likely never to happen. I have faith that human endevours will allow us to do anything we dare dream of as long as we have dreamers out there willing to put forth the effort to make such things reality. And further, like you said, relativity is a very sound theory. and to me that doesn't mean we shouldn't at least try to fully understand it or disprove it, but the opposite as it should be encouragement to show us that by further pushing and proding will take our understanding to new levels. this theory is such pushing and proding because even when proved wrong it has expanded human understanding (its been said you learn more from bad examples than of good ones) and in the end thats all science is there for. its those baby steps that lead to somthing fantastic.
I understand this and I agree with it in a lot of cases, where I lose my enthusiasm is when you get to stuff like Kaluza Klein variants with 5, 10, 18, 26 dimensions, like superstring theory for example, that a clever man has to specialise in for years to follow the maths of, and the whole thing could be based on a completely false premise in the first place, and your man has just wasted his prime years on nothing...
you realise how kepler's laws were formed? by another mans work who died before he could do anything w/ it (granted brahe couldn't do math worth shyt but its an example) and who literally wasted his life tracking stars. galileo thought that the earth wasn't the center of universe (and he did shyt loads more than that) but in that time he was declared a hertic and would have been thought of as wasting his life for nothing. So in my view a man whos research may be proved wrong will undoubtly help another man in the end find the correct solution as it eliminates a wrong route.
btw i haven't neg ya.
I have almost never negged anyone for any reason, and certainly not over them having a different POV than me... Anyhow, I do understand where you're coming from, but Galileo wasn't branded a heretic by other scientists, it was the church that did that, and their reasons, if misguided, are easily understood since man was to be the center of creation living on the immovable firmament according to doctrine. One doesn't have to bend or break any physical laws to track stars, and I do agree with you that eliminating wrong routes is important, I just seriously think that we're trying to run before we can walk with all this stuff... I think it's important to accept that we have limitations and to push the envelope of them from inside rather than to say this is what might happen if we could only do this about that...
Tycho Brahe, incidentally, poisoned himself to death by consuming liberal quantities of alcohol during a conference that he did not want to miss to the extent that he refused to urinate till it was finished. He died of the resulting Kidney problems...
-
+1 for prom coming up. i told you in pm the other day i do not hold your views against you. if i was upset i would not engage in the discussion or if i did back before i was a mod you'd certainly not have to guess about it. ;)
Thanks old friend... :)
Believe it or not, I do enjoy these discussions... And let's be honest, if there wasn't a bit of banter between people with different points of view, this thread would probably have died three pages ago...
-
which is a tip for all u booze drinkers... take a piss or prepare for the consiquences ;). btw it wasn't that he didn't want to miss it, it was that it was not proper to leave before the royalty left the room, think it was under the penalty of death... he should have found a good balcony...
-
Oh, I read in one of the 80's populizer books about quantum physics wormholes and so on that someone somewhere had ran an experiment where they successfully turned an object about 1 centimeter cubed into a single particle as far as quantum effects were concerned. effects such as tranmission of information or signals from one side to the other. it occured to the author that this demonstrated macroscopic level quantum wierdness and might be useful for FTL purposes.
have you perhaps heard of it? as i have been unable to remember where i saw it or find independent verification of it. And i would like to read up on it again.
-
which is a tip for all u booze drinkers... take a piss or prepare for the consiquences ;). btw it wasn't that he didn't want to miss it, it was that it was not proper to leave before the royalty left the room, think it was under the penalty of death... he should have found a good balcony...
Ah, I see... I'd read that it was a matter of propriety...
-
I believe the Alcubierre metric is what the "warp field" is. The trick is to create the field from the inside.
Everything related to negative energy could possibly be related to an instance of "subspace", another sci-fi idea that has yet to be discovered. Negative energy existing "below" space just makes sense to me.
Or it could be that negative energy doesn't actually exist outside some lovely frilly mathematical models that we've invented... I'd much rather get back to exploring the solar system than waste time on outlandish mysticism...
This is not true. science admits the actual existance of negative energy. I have given to examples where negative energy is accepted to exist; the casimir force and squeezed light. both but particularly the casimir force have been demonstrated in the lab thousands of times.
-
Are you referring to this?
"According to the theory the total zero point energy in the vacuum is infinite when summed over all the possible photon modes. The Casimir effect comes from a difference of energies in which the infinities cancel. The energy of the vacuum is a puzzle in theories of quantum gravity since it should act gravitationally and produce a large cosmological constant which would cause space-time to curl up. The solution to the inconsistency is expected to be found in a theory of quantum gravity."
I'm not sure how that proves the existance of negative energy, it only proves that our models of spacetime are incomplete...
-
No. When two plates are close enough together certain virtual particle modes are impossible between them while the virtual particle activity outside remains normal. This creates a energy difference between the interior and exterior region with a relatively negative energy density between the plates.The result is the plates are attracted to each other regardless of charge. The relative negative potential in between the plates acts in all ways like theoretical negative energy and could substitute for it in schemes that require negative mass or energy.
-
The problem with the method is that the best metric for space warp requires 4 ounces of negative matter/energy. while that is considerably more practical than the older metrics that requires more negative mass than the sum total of the energy/mass in the universe it would require essentially an small atomic bomb's worth of (negative) energy. The analogy meant to invoke the amount of energy in four ounces of matter according to the equation E=MC^2. it would seem impossible to me to create a casimir apparatus that would both create a useable warp field and be small enough to be fitted onto a ship. (difficulty understated in the extreme.)
-
No. When two plates are close enough together certain virtual particle modes are impossible between them while the virtual particle activity outside remains normal. This creates a energy difference between the interior and exterior region with a relatively negative energy density between the plates.The result is the plates are attracted to each other regardless of charge. The relative negative potential in between the plates acts in all ways like theoretical negative energy and could substitute for it in schemes that require negative mass or energy.
If I've read this correctly, the virtual modes between them are dependent on what virtual particles have an associated wavelength that would be equal to, or that would have integer multiples equal to the distance between the plates... I still don't get why this is taken as proof of exotic forms of energy, it seems like standard Quantum Physics (if such a word can be applied to QM) to me...
As a matter of fact, one of the banes of the life of a sound engineer is that sound wavelengths equal to or that have integer multiples equal to the distance between parallel surfaces in a room create standing waves, which is an analogus macroscopic phenomena...
-
The problem with the method is that the best metric for space warp requires 4 ounces of negative matter/energy. while that is considerably more practical than the older metrics that requires more negative mass than the sum total of the energy/mass in the universe it would require essentially an small atomic bomb's worth of (negative) energy. The analogy meant to invoke the amount of energy in four ounces of matter according to the equation E=MC^2. it would seem impossible to me to create a casimir apparatus that would both create a useable warp field and be small enough to be fitted onto a ship. (difficulty understated in the extreme.)
You've just touched on my next question. What size of casimir plates would be needed to create a viable warp field... 4 Ounces of matter contains a hell of a lot of energy...
-
No. When two plates are close enough together certain virtual particle modes are impossible between them while the virtual particle activity outside remains normal. This creates a energy difference between the interior and exterior region with a relatively negative energy density between the plates.The result is the plates are attracted to each other regardless of charge. The relative negative potential in between the plates acts in all ways like theoretical negative energy and could substitute for it in schemes that require negative mass or energy.
If I've read this correctly, the virtual modes between them are dependent on what virtual particles have an associated wavelength that would be equal to, or that would have integer multiples equal to the distance between the plates... I still don't get why this is taken as proof of exotic forms of energy, it seems like standard Quantum Physics (if such a word can be applied to QM) to me...
As a matter of fact, one of the banes of the life of a sound engineer is that sound wavelengths equal to or that have integer multiples equal to the distance between parallel surfaces in a room create standing waves, which is an analogus macroscopic phenomena...
your description of the mechanics is correct as far as it goes. but as odd as it sounds the effect there acts in all ways as if there were negative energy or mass between them, this is well studied both as casimir force or van der wahls forces. the problem is the effect is miniscule and clearly at least 4 ounces equivelant is needed for purposes of warp engines.
-
The problem with the method is that the best metric for space warp requires 4 ounces of negative matter/energy. while that is considerably more practical than the older metrics that requires more negative mass than the sum total of the energy/mass in the universe it would require essentially an small atomic bomb's worth of (negative) energy. The analogy meant to invoke the amount of energy in four ounces of matter according to the equation E=MC^2. it would seem impossible to me to create a casimir apparatus that would both create a useable warp field and be small enough to be fitted onto a ship. (difficulty understated in the extreme.)
You've just touched on my next question. What size of casimir plates would be needed to create a viable warp field... 4 Ounces of matter contains a hell of a lot of energy...
indeed. i know of no practical way to harness enough negative energy to do it. my point was to provide examples of negative energy accepted by current science so that you would abandon the "it's all theoretical" objection.
-
I think those plates would cover texas and alaska put together. just a wild assed guess...
-
I think those plates would cover texas and alaska put together. just a wild assed guess...
BUT...What if we used IC chip manufacturing techniques to make huge numbers of integrated nanoscaled casimir plate pairs? would that effectively multiply the casimir force per unit of area? if it would then the problem moves from supply to harnessing that force in useful ways.
-
isn't that also refered to as zero point energy?
-
isn't that also refered to as zero point energy?
The virtual particles? yes it is, and theoretically infinite; but there is no known way at present to harness the virtual particles (say virtual electrons) in large numbers to, for example, power a refridgerator or something. there are schemes for getting a few of them out of the vacuum but not in any significant numbers. though on this subject the fringe people are doing far more research than staid serious credentialed scientists.
firstly scientists are not engineers and secondly they are afraid of the peer dogmatism that such "way out" research would bring on them and their reputations.
-
ahh, ok just making sure that what i thought it was was ;).
-
To clarify: casimir force and van der wahls forces are not necesarily zero point energy. casimir force is a side effect of constraints on the vacuum or zero point energy.
-
additional info and references on Zero Point energy:
http://www.calphysics.org/zpe.html
From the link:
There is a force associated with the electromagnetic quantum vacuum: the Casimir force. This force is an attraction between parallel metallic plates that has now been well measured and can be attributed to a minutely tiny imbalance in the zero-point energy in the cavity between versus the region outside the plates. This is not useful for propulsion since it symmetrically pulls on the plates. However if some asymmetric variation of the Casimir force could be identified one could in effect sail through space as if propelled by a kind of quantum fluctuation wind. This is pure speculation.
The other requirement for space travel is energy. A thought experiment published by physicist Robert Forward in 1984 demonstrated how the Casimir force could in principle be used to extract energy from the quantum vacuum (Phys. Rev. B, 30, 1700, 1984). Theoretical studies in the early 1990s (Phys. Rev. E, 48, 1562, 1993) verified that this was not contradictory to the laws of thermodynamics (since the zero-point energy is different from a thermal reservoir of heat). Unfortunately the Forward process cannot be cycled to yield a continuous extraction of energy. A Casimir engine would be one whose cylinders could only fire once, after which the engine become useless.
ORIGIN OF ZERO-POINT ENERGY
The basis of zero-point energy is the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, one of the fundamental laws of quantum physics. According to this principle, the more precisely one measures the position of a moving particle, such as an electron, the less exact the best possible measurement of momentum (mass times velocity) will be, and vice versa. The least possible uncertainty of position times momentum is specified by Planck's constant, h. A parallel uncertainty exists between measurements involving time and energy. This minimum uncertainty is not due to any correctable flaws in measurement, but rather reflects an intrinsic quantum fuzziness in the very nature of energy and matter.
A useful calculational tool in physics is the ideal harmonic oscillator: a hypothetical mass on a perfect spring moving back and forth. The Heisenberg uncertainty principle dictates that such an ideal harmonic oscillator -- one small enough to be subject to quantum laws -- can never come entirely to rest, since that would be a state of exactly zero energy, which is forbidden. In this case the average minimum energy is one-half h times the frequency, hf/2.
Radio waves, light, X-rays, and gamma rays are all forms of electromagnetic radiation. Classically, electromagnetic radiation can be pictured as waves flowing through space at the speed of light. The waves are not waves of anything substantive, but are in fact ripples in a state of a field. These waves do carry energy, and each wave has a specific direction, frequency and polarization state. This is called a "propagating mode of the electromagnetic field."
Each mode is subject to the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. To understand the meaning of this, the theory of electromagnetic radiation is quantized by treating each mode as an equivalent harmonic oscillator. From this analogy, every mode of the field must have hf/2 as its average minimum energy. That is a tiny amount of energy, but the number of modes is enormous, and indeed increases as the square of the frequency. The product of the tiny energy per mode times the huge spatial density of modes yields a very high theoretical energy density per cubic centimeter.
From this line of reasoning, quantum physics predicts that all of space must be filled with electromagnetic zero-point fluctuations (also called the zero-point field) creating a universal sea of zero-point energy. The density of this energy depends critically on where in frequency the zero-point fluctuations cease. Since space itself is thought to break up into a kind of quantum foam at a tiny distance scale called the Planck scale (10-33 cm), it is argued that the zero point fluctuations must cease at a corresponding Planck frequency (1043 Hz). If that is the case, the zero-point energy density would be 110 orders of magnitude greater than the radiant energy at the center of the Sun.
CONNECTION TO INERTIA AND GRAVITATION
When a passenger in an airplane feels pushed against his seat as the airplane accelerates down the runway, or when a driver feels pushed to the left when her car makes a sharp turn to the right, what is doing the pushing? Since the time of Newton, this has been attributed to an innate property of matter called inertia. In 1994 a process was discovered whereby the zero-point fluctuations could be the source of the push one feels when changing speed or direction, both being forms of acceleration. The zero-point fluctuations could be the underlying cause of inertia. If that is the case, then we are actually sensing the zero-point energy with every move we make (see origin of inertia).
The principle of equivalence would require an analogous connection for gravitation. Einstein's general relativity successfully accounts for the motions of freely-falling objects on geodesics (the "shortest" distance between two points in curved spacetime), but does not provide a mechanism for generating a gravitational force for objects when they are forced to deviate from geodesic tracks. It has been found that an object undergoing acceleration or one held fixed in a gravitational field would experience the same kind of asymmetric pattern in the zero-point field giving rise to such a reaction force. The weight you measure on a scale would therefore be due to zero-point energy (see gravitation).
The possibility that electromagnetic zero-point energy may be involved in the production of inertial and gravitational forces opens the possibility that both inertia and gravitation might someday be controlled and manipulated. This could have a profound impact on propulsion and space travel.
Primary Articles (see Scientific Articles for additional articles)
Gravity and the Quantum Vacuum Inertia Hypothesis
Alfonso Rueda & Bernard Haisch, Annalen der Physik, Vol. 14, No. 8, 479-498 (2005).
Analysis of Orbital Decay Time for the Classical Hydrogen Atom Interacting with Circularly Polarized Electromagnetic Radiation
Daniel C. Cole & Yi Zou, Physical Review E, 69, 016601, (2004).
Inertial mass and the quantum vacuum fields
Bernard Haisch, Alfonso Rueda & York Dobyns, Annalen der Physik, Vol. 10, No. 5, 393-414 (2001).
Stochastic nonrelativistic approach to gravity as originating from vacuum zero-point field van der Waals forces
Daniel C. Cole, Alfonso Rueda, Konn Danley, Physical Review A, 63, 054101, (2001).
The Case for Inertia as a Vacuum Effect: a Reply to Woodward & Mahood
Y. Dobyns, A. Rueda & B.Haisch, Foundations of Physics, Vol. 30, No. 1, 59 (2000).
On the relation between a zero-point-field-induced inertial effect and the Einstein-de Broglie formula
B. Haisch & A. Rueda, Physics Letters A, 268, 224, (2000).
Contribution to inertial mass by reaction of the vacuum to accelerated motion
A. Rueda & B. Haisch, Foundations of Physics, Vol. 28, No. 7, pp. 1057-1108 (1998).
Inertial mass as reaction of the vacuum to acccelerated motion
A. Rueda & B. Haisch, Physics Letters A, vol. 240, No. 3, pp. 115-126, (1998).
Reply to Michel's "Comment on Zero-Point Fluctuations and the Cosmological Constant"
B. Haisch & A. Rueda, Astrophysical Journal, 488, 563, (1997).
Quantum and classical statistics of the electromagnetic zero-point-field
M. Ibison & B. Haisch, Physical Review A, 54, pp. 2737-2744, (1996).
Vacuum Zero-Point Field Pressure Instability in Astrophysical Plasmas and the Formation of Cosmic Voids
A. Rueda, B. Haisch & D.C. Cole, Astrophysical Journal, Vol. 445, pp. 7-16 (1995).
Inertia as a zero-point-field Lorentz force
B. Haisch, A. Rueda & H.E. Puthoff, Physical Review A, Vol. 49, No. 2, pp. 678-694 (1994).
-
isn't that also refered to as zero point energy?
firstly scientists are not engineers and secondly they are afraid of the peer dogmatism that such "way out" research would bring on them and their reputations.
Would it surprise you to know that I can see exactly where they're coming from? ;)
-
isn't that also refered to as zero point energy?
firstly scientists are not engineers and secondly they are afraid of the peer dogmatism that such "way out" research would bring on them and their reputations.
Would it surprise you to know that I can see exactly where they're coming from? ;)
No. but you must remember undiscovered stuff is only found by looking where no one has bothered to look. and since science is about that discovery then such attitudes are well...curious.
-
Crap! I lost a good post about what negative matter and energy is. I'll try to reproduce the idea later.
-
I still don't get why this is taken as proof of exotic forms of energy, it seems like standard Quantum Physics (if such a word can be applied to QM) to me...
Well the uncertainty principle allows "imaginary" negative energy states for particles, quanta and so on. imagine a sine wave with the positive curve representing physical particles and energy states normal for our universe and the negative part of the sine wave representing virtual particles and quanta. now introduce a set of casimir plates that supresses a great deal of the virtual particles and exchanges. there are no or at least much fewer virtual energies in the gap between the plates. thus the area in the gap has less energy relative to the surrounding area which is considered at the zero point or ground state. this renders it's energy negative and it's mass negative compared to free regions of space. note that casimir plated are attracted to each other regardless of charge. this is the opposite or negative of what should happen by conventional understandings of physical laws. but it would be what would be expected if signs were reversed in the physical equations.
-
say speakin' of staid dogmatic scientists: remember way back when when anyone who was not a k0ok knew that stellar processes did not produce elements heavier than iron except during super nova explosions? anyone who said otherwise was a fool, a charlatan or a liar. well now that lead has been verified in several stars that definitely were not novas there is nary a peep of apology to those of us who said stars could indeed sythesize trans iron elements. nope not one "We fooked up and we're sorry" from the smarmy peer reviewed robe wearing acolytes of science dogma. well they can all bugger off.
-
say speakin' of staid dogmatic scientists: remember way back when when anyone who was not a k0ok knew that stellar processes did not produce elements heavier than iron except during super nova explosions? anyone who said otherwise was a fool, a charlatan or a liar. well now that lead has been verified in several stars that definitely were not novas there is nary a peep of apology to those of us who said stars could indeed sythesize trans iron elements. nope not one "We fooked up and we're sorry" from the smarmy peer reviewed robe wearing acolytes of science dogma. well they can all bugger off.
Science is about seperating fact from fiction, and without the robe wearing acolytes of science dogma, scientific research will give way to outlandish nonsense, and the most effective tool for filtering knowledge ever deivsed will turn into a religion as preposterous as any of the other ones... If you want to join the scientologists, be my guest, but I'll stick with the science dogma...
-
I still don't get why this is taken as proof of exotic forms of energy, it seems like standard Quantum Physics (if such a word can be applied to QM) to me...
Well the uncertainty principle allows "imaginary" negative energy states for particles, quanta and so on. imagine a sine wave with the positive curve representing physical particles and energy states normal for our universe and the negative part of the sine wave representing virtual particles and quanta. now introduce a set of casimir plates that supresses a great deal of the virtual particles and exchanges. there are no or at least much fewer virtual energies in the gap between the plates. thus the area in the gap has less energy relative to the surrounding area which is considered at the zero point or ground state. this renders it's energy negative and it's mass negative compared to free regions of space. note that casimir plated are attracted to each other regardless of charge. this is the opposite or negative of what should happen by conventional understandings of physical laws. but it would be what would be expected if signs were reversed in the physical equations.
This all sounds totally reasonable to me, and indeed has been pretty well proven by the Casimir Effect, however I noticed that...
"The possibility[/u] that electromagnetic zero-point energy may[/u] be involved in the production of inertial and gravitational forces opens the possibility[/u] that both inertia and gravitation might[/u] someday be controlled and manipulated. This COULD[/u] have a profound impact on propulsion and space travel."
...there is a lot of very indisicive language used in here about using vacuum energy for space travel, and no mention at all of faster than light travel...
-
isn't that also refered to as zero point energy?
firstly scientists are not engineers and secondly they are afraid of the peer dogmatism that such "way out" research would bring on them and their reputations.
Would it surprise you to know that I can see exactly where they're coming from? ;)
No. but you must remember undiscovered stuff is only found by looking where no one has bothered to look. and since science is about that discovery then such attitudes are well...curious.
I always thought that science was about separating provable fact from myth, and that the discoveries in science emerged from the application of the knowledge gained from this filtering process... Science is not about discovery, it's about explanation, and asking the right questions...
-
say speakin' of staid dogmatic scientists: remember way back when when anyone who was not a k0ok knew that stellar processes did not produce elements heavier than iron except during super nova explosions? anyone who said otherwise was a fool, a charlatan or a liar. well now that lead has been verified in several stars that definitely were not novas there is nary a peep of apology to those of us who said stars could indeed sythesize trans iron elements. nope not one "We fooked up and we're sorry" from the smarmy peer reviewed robe wearing acolytes of science dogma. well they can all bugger off.
the Iron minimum is a pretty reasonable rule of thumb, just as Newtons laws are a still a pretty good rule of thumb... No good scientist would ever say that theories should be considered beyond modification... Hell, Einstein and Heisenberg even modified the Law of Conservation of Energy...
-
isn't that also refered to as zero point energy?
firstly scientists are not engineers and secondly they are afraid of the peer dogmatism that such "way out" research would bring on them and their reputations.
Would it surprise you to know that I can see exactly where they're coming from? ;)
No. but you must remember undiscovered stuff is only found by looking where no one has bothered to look. and since science is about that discovery then such attitudes are well...curious.
I always thought that science was about separating provable fact from myth, and that the discoveries in science emerged from the application of the knowledge gained from this filtering process... Science is not about discovery, it's about explanation, and asking the right questions...
In principle, but not necessarily in practice. Just look at all of the "accidental" discoveries, or inventions made by people who were working outside the scientific process. It's astounding.
-
In principle, but not necessarily in practice. Just look at all of the "accidental" discoveries, or inventions made by people who were working outside the scientific process. It's astounding.
I can't think of many accidental scientific discoveries... Inventions of course are a completely different field, more to do with engineering I would think...
-
I still don't get why this is taken as proof of exotic forms of energy, it seems like standard Quantum Physics (if such a word can be applied to QM) to me...
Well the uncertainty principle allows "imaginary" negative energy states for particles, quanta and so on. imagine a sine wave with the positive curve representing physical particles and energy states normal for our universe and the negative part of the sine wave representing virtual particles and quanta. now introduce a set of casimir plates that supresses a great deal of the virtual particles and exchanges. there are no or at least much fewer virtual energies in the gap between the plates. thus the area in the gap has less energy relative to the surrounding area which is considered at the zero point or ground state. this renders it's energy negative and it's mass negative compared to free regions of space. note that casimir plated are attracted to each other regardless of charge. this is the opposite or negative of what should happen by conventional understandings of physical laws. but it would be what would be expected if signs were reversed in the physical equations.
This all sounds totally reasonable to me, and indeed has been pretty well proven by the Casimir Effect, however I noticed that...
"The possibility[/u] that electromagnetic zero-point energy may[/u] be involved in the production of inertial and gravitational forces opens the possibility[/u] that both inertia and gravitation might[/u] someday be controlled and manipulated. This COULD[/u] have a profound impact on propulsion and space travel."
...there is a lot of very indisicive language used in here about using vacuum energy for space travel, and no mention at all of faster than light travel...
yeah it could have been a bit more illuminating. the author could have said that this theory is one of a handful considered serious cosmological contenders for QG theory. that would have given it more credibility. that is what he should have wrote because it is true.
-
In principle, but not necessarily in practice. Just look at all of the "accidental" discoveries, or inventions made by people who were working outside the scientific process. It's astounding.
I can't think of many accidental scientific discoveries... Inventions of course are a completely different field, more to do with engineering I would think...
I think in a lot of instances an invention is made, then science backs into the theory to explain the invention. Much like how in the world a bumble bee can fly. According to an aeronautical engineer, it can't. ;D
-
or bubble fusion. but the bumble bee flight mystery has been solved after centuries of puzzlement.
-
or bubble fusion. but the bumble bee flight mystery has been solved after centuries of puzzlement.
Ahh... but not the physics of it, because we did not understand (before the Wright Brothers' era) that birds are able to fly because the upper surface of the wing is more curved than the lower surface. Therefore, when air hits the leading edge of the wing, it travels faster over the top of the wing than below it, creating negative pressure and pulling the wing into the air (rather than lifting it, therefore "lift" is a deceptive term).
We didn't know there was a problem with bees flying until the Wright Brothers managed to get the right combinations in place and fly, then science figure out why they did it, then someone noticed that a bumble bee did not fit the flight model. It was only about an 80 year old mystery when it was solved. ;D
-
I still don't get why this is taken as proof of exotic forms of energy, it seems like standard Quantum Physics (if such a word can be applied to QM) to me...
Well the uncertainty principle allows "imaginary" negative energy states for particles, quanta and so on. imagine a sine wave with the positive curve representing physical particles and energy states normal for our universe and the negative part of the sine wave representing virtual particles and quanta. now introduce a set of casimir plates that supresses a great deal of the virtual particles and exchanges. there are no or at least much fewer virtual energies in the gap between the plates. thus the area in the gap has less energy relative to the surrounding area which is considered at the zero point or ground state. this renders it's energy negative and it's mass negative compared to free regions of space. note that casimir plated are attracted to each other regardless of charge. this is the opposite or negative of what should happen by conventional understandings of physical laws. but it would be what would be expected if signs were reversed in the physical equations.
This all sounds totally reasonable to me, and indeed has been pretty well proven by the Casimir Effect, however I noticed that...
"The possibility[/u] that electromagnetic zero-point energy may[/u] be involved in the production of inertial and gravitational forces opens the possibility[/u] that both inertia and gravitation might[/u] someday be controlled and manipulated. This COULD[/u] have a profound impact on propulsion and space travel."
...there is a lot of very indisicive language used in here about using vacuum energy for space travel, and no mention at all of faster than light travel...
yeah it could have been a bit more illuminating. the author could have said that this theory is one of a handful considered serious cosmological contenders for QG theory. that would have given it more credibility. that is what he should have wrote because it is true.
As a matter of fact i have read an article on this at science daily detailing the nuts and bolts of that particular view of inertia and gravity. I can find the link if you are interested.
-
Fundamental physics comprises the attempt to understand the nature of the stable elementary particles (leptons and quarks), the messenger particles (gauge bosons) which mediate the interactions, and the relationship of the four interactions (electromagnetism, weak, strong and gravitational) to each other. Experiments in which particles are made to collide are consistent with elementary particles being immeasurably small, structureless objects. The upper limit on the collisionally-measured size of the electron, for example, is <10-17 cm. However modern physics theory no longer views particles as point-like objects. In place of that view, quantum field theory assumes that all of space is filled with a quantum field and interprets all stable particles and the messenger particles as excitations of this field. This has resulted in the "standard model" which can legitimately boast precision of some predicted particle properties to an amazing 13 significant figures, but requires 19 hand-adjusted parameters as basic input. There is also the central problem that quantum theory appears to be fundamentally incompatible with general relativity.
It now appears that quantum field theory may be the low energy limit of superstring theory. Superstring theory assumes that spacetime is not merely four-dimensional, but rather that there are many additional dimensions -- such as six Calabi-Yau dimensions -- which exist but differ from the ordinary space and time that we experience in everyday life by virtue of being curled up on themselves. Both the stable particles and the messenger particles are regarded as loops of string. Parallel to quantum field theory, particles are interpreted as excitations of such strings. As bizarre as superstring theory may sound to the layman, there are amazing properties, such as resolving the conflict between quantum laws and general relativity and having no necessary free parameters, that make the theory quite intriguing. An excellent overview is that of string theorist, Brian Greene, in his book The Elegant Universe. (Recent developments since 1997 indicate that superstring theory may itself be a subset of an even more comprehensive theory, M-brane theory, which adds yet another compact dimension to superstring theory.)
In both quantum field theory and superstring theory, the quantum field excitations or string representations of particles have no intrinsic inertia. We use the term "inertia" deliberately in place of "mass" because in both quantum field theory and in superstring theory there is a postulated mechanism for massless particles to acquire mass from interactions with an hypothesized Higgs field. However the mass that is acquired in this way is mass in the sense of equivalent energy, not in the sense of inertia. If one assumes that inertia is an intrinsic property of mass or its energy equivalent, a Higgs mechanism may indeed be the end of the story. However the possibility that there exists an extrinsic mechanism for generating inertia goes back at least to the work of Ernst Mach in the 19th century. As discussed in great detail in the book Concepts of Mass in Contemporary Physics and Philosophy by physicist-philosopher Max Jammer the question of why a reaction force should arise when any physical object is accelerated remains a legitimate and heretofore unanswered question.
It is suggested that inertia is indeed a fundamental property that has not been properly addressed even by superstring theory. The acquisition of mass-energy may still allow for, indeed demand, a mechanism to generate an inertial reaction force upon acceleration. Or to put it another way, even when a Higgs particle is finally detected establishing the existence of a Higgs field, one may still need a mechanism for giving that Higgs-induced mass the property of inertia. A mechanism capable of generating an inertial reaction force has been discovered using the techniques of stochastic electrodynamics (origin of inertia). Perhaps this simple yet elegant result may be pointing to a deep new insight on inertia and the principle of equivalence, and if so, how this may be unified with modern quantum field theory and superstring theory.
The empty vacuum of older physics is today replaced by an active one in which virtual particles come into and go out of existence on timescales allowed by Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. A concrete proof of this is the measurement of the distance (or energy) dependence of the fine-structure "constant". This is explained by vacuum polarization, wherein the electric charge of a (real) particle is partially screened by those of other (virtual) particles. In general, the physics of the quantum vacuum is a rich if complex subject.
A better understanding of the origin of inertia would lead to new insights into the laws of motion, perhaps with practical applications such as to spacecraft propulsion (in the far future). The laws of the quantum vacuum are not completely understood, but certainly their manifestations are frequently stochastic. Fluctuations of vacuum fields are irregular, but their averaged effects can be calculated using quantum field theory (QFT). Within the rather broad scope of the latter term, calculations agree with observations to great accuracy in processes where electrons interact with photons, i.e. quantum electrodynamics (QED). The basic formulation of QFT as a theory of quantum electrodynamics can be extended also to the theory of the strong or nuclear interaction, where under the term quantum chromodynamics (QCD) it may be a subject for study in the future. Right now, probably the best-studied consequence of QFT as applied to electrodynamics comes from measurements of the Casimir effect. This effect, wherein parallel plates in apparently empty space experience a force of attraction, clearly shows that the quantum vacuum is not passive. Useful calculations can also be done in this subject using a semiclassical approach to the interactions of charged particles with an electromagnetic field known as stochastic electrodynamics (SED). One version of the latter envisages a zero-point electromagnetic field whose quanta buffet charged particles, producing a microscopic motion whih Schroedinger dubbed "zitterbewegung". Using the techniques of SED an intriguing new theoretical approach is suggesting a deep connection between electrodynamics, the origin of inertia and the quantum wave nature of matter.
Primary Articles (see Scientific Articles for additional articles)
Gravity and the Quantum Vacuum Inertia Hypothesis
Alfonso Rueda & Bernard Haisch, Annalen der Physik, Vol. 14, No. 8, 479-498 (2005).
Analysis of Orbital Decay Time for the Classical Hydrogen Atom Interacting with Circularly Polarized Electromagnetic Radiation
Daniel C. Cole & Yi Zou, Physical Review E, 69, 016601, (2004).
Inertial mass and the quantum vacuum fields
Bernard Haisch, Alfonso Rueda & York Dobyns, Annalen der Physik, Vol. 10, No. 5, 393-414 (2001).
Stochastic nonrelativistic approach to gravity as originating from vacuum zero-point field van der Waals forces
Daniel C. Cole, Alfonso Rueda, Konn Danley, Physical Review A, 63, 054101, (2001).
The Case for Inertia as a Vacuum Effect: a Reply to Woodward & Mahood
Y. Dobyns, A. Rueda & B.Haisch, Foundations of Physics, Vol. 30, No. 1, 59 (2000).
On the relation between a zero-point-field-induced inertial effect and the Einstein-de Broglie formula
B. Haisch & A. Rueda, Physics Letters A, 268, 224, (2000).
Contribution to inertial mass by reaction of the vacuum to accelerated motion
A. Rueda & B. Haisch, Foundations of Physics, Vol. 28, No. 7, pp. 1057-1108 (1998).
Inertial mass as reaction of the vacuum to acccelerated motion
A. Rueda & B. Haisch, Physics Letters A, vol. 240, No. 3, pp. 115-126, (1998).
Reply to Michel's "Comment on Zero-Point Fluctuations and the Cosmological Constant"
B. Haisch & A. Rueda, Astrophysical Journal, 488, 563, (1997).
Quantum and classical statistics of the electromagnetic zero-point-field
M. Ibison & B. Haisch, Physical Review A, 54, pp. 2737-2744, (1996).
Vacuum Zero-Point Field Pressure Instability in Astrophysical Plasmas and the Formation of Cosmic Voids
A. Rueda, B. Haisch & D.C. Cole, Astrophysical Journal, Vol. 445, pp. 7-16 (1995).
Inertia as a zero-point-field Lorentz force
B. Haisch, A. Rueda & H.E. Puthoff, Physical Review A, Vol. 49, No. 2, pp. 678-694 (1994).
-
I still don't get why this is taken as proof of exotic forms of energy, it seems like standard Quantum Physics (if such a word can be applied to QM) to me...
Well the uncertainty principle allows "imaginary" negative energy states for particles, quanta and so on. imagine a sine wave with the positive curve representing physical particles and energy states normal for our universe and the negative part of the sine wave representing virtual particles and quanta. now introduce a set of casimir plates that supresses a great deal of the virtual particles and exchanges. there are no or at least much fewer virtual energies in the gap between the plates. thus the area in the gap has less energy relative to the surrounding area which is considered at the zero point or ground state. this renders it's energy negative and it's mass negative compared to free regions of space. note that casimir plated are attracted to each other regardless of charge. this is the opposite or negative of what should happen by conventional understandings of physical laws. but it would be what would be expected if signs were reversed in the physical equations.
This all sounds totally reasonable to me, and indeed has been pretty well proven by the Casimir Effect, however I noticed that...
"The possibility[/u] that electromagnetic zero-point energy may[/u] be involved in the production of inertial and gravitational forces opens the possibility[/u] that both inertia and gravitation might[/u] someday be controlled and manipulated. This COULD[/u] have a profound impact on propulsion and space travel."
...there is a lot of very indisicive language used in here about using vacuum energy for space travel, and no mention at all of faster than light travel...
yeah it could have been a bit more illuminating. the author could have said that this theory is one of a handful considered serious cosmological contenders for QG theory. that would have given it more credibility. that is what he should have wrote because it is true.
It maybe possibly might could be true, but that remains to be seen... However, one would have to conceal the possibility the Quantum Mechanics and Gravity have not been reconciled because they cannot be reconciled... Maybe the Spacetime continuum is a multithreaded Operating System...
-
Fundamental physics comprises the attempt to understand the nature of the stable elementary particles (leptons and quarks), the messenger particles (gauge bosons) which mediate the interactions, and the relationship of the four interactions (electromagnetism, weak, strong and gravitational) to each other. Experiments in which particles are made to collide are consistent with elementary particles being immeasurably small, structureless objects. The upper limit on the collisionally-measured size of the electron, for example, is <10-17 cm. However modern physics theory no longer views particles as point-like objects. In place of that view, quantum field theory assumes that all of space is filled with a quantum field and interprets all stable particles and the messenger particles as excitations of this field. This has resulted in the "standard model" which can legitimately boast precision of some predicted particle properties to an amazing 13 significant figures, but requires 19 hand-adjusted parameters as basic input. There is also the central problem that quantum theory appears to be fundamentally incompatible with general relativity.
It now appears that quantum field theory may be the low energy limit of superstring theory. Superstring theory assumes that spacetime is not merely four-dimensional, but rather that there are many additional dimensions -- such as six Calabi-Yau dimensions -- which exist but differ from the ordinary space and time that we experience in everyday life by virtue of being curled up on themselves. Both the stable particles and the messenger particles are regarded as loops of string. Parallel to quantum field theory, particles are interpreted as excitations of such strings. As bizarre as superstring theory may sound to the layman, there are amazing properties, such as resolving the conflict between quantum laws and general relativity and having no necessary free parameters, that make the theory quite intriguing. An excellent overview is that of string theorist, Brian Greene, in his book The Elegant Universe. (Recent developments since 1997 indicate that superstring theory may itself be a subset of an even more comprehensive theory, M-brane theory, which adds yet another compact dimension to superstring theory.)
In both quantum field theory and superstring theory, the quantum field excitations or string representations of particles have no intrinsic inertia. We use the term "inertia" deliberately in place of "mass" because in both quantum field theory and in superstring theory there is a postulated mechanism for massless particles to acquire mass from interactions with an hypothesized Higgs field. However the mass that is acquired in this way is mass in the sense of equivalent energy, not in the sense of inertia. If one assumes that inertia is an intrinsic property of mass or its energy equivalent, a Higgs mechanism may indeed be the end of the story. However the possibility that there exists an extrinsic mechanism for generating inertia goes back at least to the work of Ernst Mach in the 19th century. As discussed in great detail in the book Concepts of Mass in Contemporary Physics and Philosophy by physicist-philosopher Max Jammer the question of why a reaction force should arise when any physical object is accelerated remains a legitimate and heretofore unanswered question.
It is suggested that inertia is indeed a fundamental property that has not been properly addressed even by superstring theory. The acquisition of mass-energy may still allow for, indeed demand, a mechanism to generate an inertial reaction force upon acceleration. Or to put it another way, even when a Higgs particle is finally detected establishing the existence of a Higgs field, one may still need a mechanism for giving that Higgs-induced mass the property of inertia. A mechanism capable of generating an inertial reaction force has been discovered using the techniques of stochastic electrodynamics (origin of inertia). Perhaps this simple yet elegant result may be pointing to a deep new insight on inertia and the principle of equivalence, and if so, how this may be unified with modern quantum field theory and superstring theory.
The empty vacuum of older physics is today replaced by an active one in which virtual particles come into and go out of existence on timescales allowed by Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. A concrete proof of this is the measurement of the distance (or energy) dependence of the fine-structure "constant". This is explained by vacuum polarization, wherein the electric charge of a (real) particle is partially screened by those of other (virtual) particles. In general, the physics of the quantum vacuum is a rich if complex subject.
A better understanding of the origin of inertia would lead to new insights into the laws of motion, perhaps with practical applications such as to spacecraft propulsion (in the far future). The laws of the quantum vacuum are not completely understood, but certainly their manifestations are frequently stochastic. Fluctuations of vacuum fields are irregular, but their averaged effects can be calculated using quantum field theory (QFT). Within the rather broad scope of the latter term, calculations agree with observations to great accuracy in processes where electrons interact with photons, i.e. quantum electrodynamics (QED). The basic formulation of QFT as a theory of quantum electrodynamics can be extended also to the theory of the strong or nuclear interaction, where under the term quantum chromodynamics (QCD) it may be a subject for study in the future. Right now, probably the best-studied consequence of QFT as applied to electrodynamics comes from measurements of the Casimir effect. This effect, wherein parallel plates in apparently empty space experience a force of attraction, clearly shows that the quantum vacuum is not passive. Useful calculations can also be done in this subject using a semiclassical approach to the interactions of charged particles with an electromagnetic field known as stochastic electrodynamics (SED). One version of the latter envisages a zero-point electromagnetic field whose quanta buffet charged particles, producing a microscopic motion whih Schroedinger dubbed "zitterbewegung". Using the techniques of SED an intriguing new theoretical approach is suggesting a deep connection between electrodynamics, the origin of inertia and the quantum wave nature of matter.
Primary Articles (see Scientific Articles for additional articles)
Gravity and the Quantum Vacuum Inertia Hypothesis
Alfonso Rueda & Bernard Haisch, Annalen der Physik, Vol. 14, No. 8, 479-498 (2005).
Analysis of Orbital Decay Time for the Classical Hydrogen Atom Interacting with Circularly Polarized Electromagnetic Radiation
Daniel C. Cole & Yi Zou, Physical Review E, 69, 016601, (2004).
Inertial mass and the quantum vacuum fields
Bernard Haisch, Alfonso Rueda & York Dobyns, Annalen der Physik, Vol. 10, No. 5, 393-414 (2001).
Stochastic nonrelativistic approach to gravity as originating from vacuum zero-point field van der Waals forces
Daniel C. Cole, Alfonso Rueda, Konn Danley, Physical Review A, 63, 054101, (2001).
The Case for Inertia as a Vacuum Effect: a Reply to Woodward & Mahood
Y. Dobyns, A. Rueda & B.Haisch, Foundations of Physics, Vol. 30, No. 1, 59 (2000).
On the relation between a zero-point-field-induced inertial effect and the Einstein-de Broglie formula
B. Haisch & A. Rueda, Physics Letters A, 268, 224, (2000).
Contribution to inertial mass by reaction of the vacuum to accelerated motion
A. Rueda & B. Haisch, Foundations of Physics, Vol. 28, No. 7, pp. 1057-1108 (1998).
Inertial mass as reaction of the vacuum to acccelerated motion
A. Rueda & B. Haisch, Physics Letters A, vol. 240, No. 3, pp. 115-126, (1998).
Reply to Michel's "Comment on Zero-Point Fluctuations and the Cosmological Constant"
B. Haisch & A. Rueda, Astrophysical Journal, 488, 563, (1997).
Quantum and classical statistics of the electromagnetic zero-point-field
M. Ibison & B. Haisch, Physical Review A, 54, pp. 2737-2744, (1996).
Vacuum Zero-Point Field Pressure Instability in Astrophysical Plasmas and the Formation of Cosmic Voids
A. Rueda, B. Haisch & D.C. Cole, Astrophysical Journal, Vol. 445, pp. 7-16 (1995).
Inertia as a zero-point-field Lorentz force
B. Haisch, A. Rueda & H.E. Puthoff, Physical Review A, Vol. 49, No. 2, pp. 678-694 (1994).
Superstring Theory: Lot's of nice looking maths, reassuringly complex, plenty of magic numbers inserted to fudge certain problems, but no real evidence to back it up and a sh*t load of metaphysical baggage in the shape of hyper dimensions curled up so tight they are impercebtible...
Elegant and Beautiful, the music of the spheres revisited, but I'll be waiting for a lot more evidence...
-
well whatever the case, higgs field interchange bosons, or quantum seaweed and barnacles science is going to find out. The higgs if it exists will be found in the next 5 years. we are learning how to grasp the quantum goo with casimir, van der waals and with another force which until this thread i had no idea was related to quantum flux.
what is cool is if it is the latter then it won't necessarily be scientists in ivy league universities and multibillion dollar laboratories that find the grail. it might be some basement "k0ok" with second hand or homemade instruments and insatiable curiousity and strange theories and crazy goals that does it.
-
Superstring Theory: Lot's of nice looking maths, reassuringly complex, plenty of magic numbers inserted to fudge certain problems, but no real evidence to back it up and a sh*t load of metaphysical baggage in the shape of hyper dimensions curled up so tight they are impercebtible...
Elegant and Beautiful, the music of the spheres revisited, but I'll be waiting for a lot more evidence...
Well stand by: i'll get you your evidence in short order. I'm off to fetch it via google.
-
http://uplink.space.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=sciastro&Number=291430&page=21&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=0&fpart=
A boatload of dark matter, or a galaxy, group of galaxies, black hole, or any other massive 3D object would cause gravitational lensing involving multiple images arranged in an arc or circle around the lens. The theoretical hallmark of gravitational lensing caused by a cosmic string is a pair -- two and only two -- identical images close together. I really don't know much about it, but it seems to me that the nature of the lens -- 3D mass or 1D cosmic string -- is (theoretically) easily determined from the nature of the images it creates.
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2005-07/ns-iia072705.php
New Scientist
Is it a cosmic string we're seeing?
THE case for the existence of cosmic strings has just been boosted. If confirmed, these one-dimensional threads of energy that can span millions of light years could be the first sign of extra dimensions in the universe. Cosmic strings are predicted by string theory. They are gigantic counterparts of the strings that are thought to give rise to the fundamental particles of matter. String theory suggests that our universe may be a three-dimensional island, or "brane", and that the big bang was the result of a collision between our universe and another 3D brane. The collision would have given rise to one-dimensional cosmic strings, and finding such a string would strengthen the theory and support the idea that extra dimensions exist.
The immense energy of a cosmic string would warp the space-time around it. If one existed somewhere between us and a distant galaxy, say, the warped space-time would create two possible paths for the light from the galaxy to reach Earth. This would result in two identical images of the galaxy in our sky, just a whisker apart. Last year, that's exactly what Mikhail Sazhin of Capodimonte Astronomical Observatory in Naples, Italy, and the Sternberg Astronomical Institute in Moscow, Russia, and his colleagues found. They named the pair CSL-1 (New Scientist, 18 December 2004, p 30).
Many astronomers were sceptical of Sazhin's claim that a string was creating the images. Abraham Loeb of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics in Cambridge, Massachusetts, said that CSL-1 is merely two very similar galaxies that happen to be close together. Now, Sazhin's team has presented more evidence that the two images are of the same galaxy. In March, the team used the European Southern Observatory's Very Large Telescope at Paranal, Chile, to record detailed spectra of the two galaxies and found that they are identical (www.arxiv.org/astro-ph/0506400 ). This adds further weight to the possibility that CSL-1 is an artefact of a string, he says. "We are 99.9 per cent sure of this."
Loeb remains unconvinced. "It is not clear whether the quality of the spectra is sufficient to separate, for example, the Milky Way galaxy from the Andromeda galaxy in the local group of galaxies," he says. "Both the Milky Way and Andromeda might have similar spectra." He adds that if the astronomers could use their technique to tell these neighbours apart, then it would make their case for CSL-1 much stronger. Sazhin believes his team's technique would be precise enough to distinguish the Milky Way from Andromeda, even if they were as far away as CSL-1, but admits more work needs to be done to demonstrate this.
If a string is producing the twin galaxy images, the edges of the images should be extremely sharp, but our turbulent atmosphere prevents telescopes on Earth from detecting this. Now Sazhin has been granted turbulence-free observation time on the Hubble Space Telescope. "The resolution of the HST will allow us to detect the specific signature produced by the cosmic string," he says. "We hope it will reduce the scepticism of other astronomers."
-
The first evidence for string theory?
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/fundamentals/mg18424781.400
18 December 2004
Marcus Chown
Magazine issue 2478
A double view of galaxies and a quirky quasar leads astronomers to think they have spotted a thread of pure energy streaking through our galaxy
IF YOU consider them separately, these two observations are hardly going to set the scientific world on fire. But together they add up to a spectacular possibility. In a tiny region of sky, astronomers have seen a dozen galaxies that appear as a curious sequence of double images. They have also observed a quasar whose brightness oscillates in an unexpected way. What could cause these odd phenomena? The only explanation that covers both is pretty mind-bending: "superstrings" of pure energy that can stretch millions of light years across the universe. Is this the first experimental evidence for string theory?
The theory is our best hope of understanding how the universe works at its most fundamental level. It suggests that the basic constituents of matter are impossibly narrow threads of concentrated energy. The various different ways these superstrings can vibrate correspond to different fundamental particles, such as the up-quark and the ...
The complete article is 2423 words long.
-
Finding the Ultimate Theory of Everything
http://www.fancey.ca/gark/?showfulltext=142
Could two lookalike galaxies, barely a whisker apart in the night sky, herald a revolution in our understanding of fundamental physics? Some physicists believe that the two galaxies are the same - its image has been split into two, they maintain, by a "cosmic string"; a San Andreas Fault in the very fabric of space and time.
If this interpretation is correct, then CSL-1 - the name of the curious double galaxy - is the first concrete evidence for "superstring theory": the best candidate for a "theory of everything", which attempts to encapsulate all the phenomena of nature in one neat set of equations.
Superstring theory views the fundamental building blocks of all matter - the electrons and quarks that make up the atoms in our bodies - as ultra- tiny pieces of vibrating "string". And, just as different vibrations of a violin string correspond to different musical notes, different vibrations of this fundamental string correspond to different fundamental particles.
The problem with string theory is that the strings are fantastically smaller than atoms and, therefore, impossible to detect in any conceivable laboratory experiment. But recently, physicists realised that the extreme conditions that existed in the early universe could have spawned enormously big strings. It is one of these "cosmic superstrings" that some believe is passing between the Earth and CSL- 1, and, in the process, creating the curious double image of the galaxy.
The realisation that big strings are possible has come from exploring the most esoteric implications of the theory. For instance, the only way strings can vibrate in enough different ways to mimic all the known fundamental particles is if the strings vibrate in a space-time of 10 dimensions.
Since we appear to live in a universe with a mere four dimensions - three of space and one of time - string theorists have been forced to postulate the existence of six extra space dimensions "rolled up" so small we have overlooked them.
The existence of the extra dimensions opens up the possibility of more complex objects. In addition to strings, which extend in only one dimension, it is possible to have objects with two, three or more dimensions. These are dubbed branes, or p-branes, where the "p" denotes the number of their dimensions.
This has raised the possibility that our universe is a three- brane - a three- dimensional "island", adrift in a 10-dimensional space. And, if it is, it may not be alone. Some have suggested that the big bang was caused when another brane collided with our own 13.7 billion years ago (See "Highly strung", The Independent, 7 July 2004).
Crucially, a collision between branes creates strings - both within each brane and as a kind of spaghetti connecting the branes. And these can be stretched to cosmic dimensions to make cosmic superstrings. "Cosmic strings turn out to be pretty much inevitable in the brane scenario," says Tom Kibble of Imperial College in London.
Cosmic superstrings would be under enormous tension, like a geological fault in the Earth's crust. But, being free to move, they would attempt to relieve the tension by lashing about through space at almost the speed of light. But their most interesting property is the effect they have on their surroundings. "A string distorts the space around it in a very distinctive way," says Kibble.
One way to visualise this is to imagine a string coming up through this page. Imagine cutting from the paper a narrow triangle whose tip is at the string, then gluing the paper back together again. The result will be a shallow cone centred on the string.
Because of this distortion of space, if a string passes between us and a distant galaxy - a giant collection of stars like our Milky Way - the light of the galaxy can come to Earth along two possible routes: one on either side of the string. Consequently, there will be two identical images of the galaxy only a whisker apart - which is exactly what is seen in the case of CSL-1.
CSL-1 was discovered by a team led by Mikhail Sazhin of Capodimonte Astronomical Observatory in Naples and the Sternberg Astronomical Institute in Moscow. They christened it Capodimonte- Sternberg Lens Candidate 1, which is where the CSL-1 comes from. "It looks like the signature of a string to me," says Kibble. "However, it is always possible we are seeing two galaxies that just happen to look surprisingly similar." This is the view of the sceptics. "CSL- 1 is most likely just a pair of galaxies that happened to be close together on the sky," says Abraham Loeb of the Harvard-Smithsonian Centre for Astrophysics. "We know of many close pairs of galaxies in the local universe, including our own Milky Way and Andromeda." But others are keeping their fingers crossed that Loeb is wrong. "I am hoping nature won't have played such a trick on us," says Tanmay Vachaspati of Case Western Reserve University in Ohio.
If CSL-1 was the only piece of evidence for a cosmic superstring it might be easy to brush it under the carpet. But it isn't. There is the "double quasar" Q0957+561A,B. Discovered at Jodrell Bank near Manchester in 1979, the two images of a super-bright galaxy, or quasar, are formed by a galaxy lying between the quasar and the Earth.
The gravity of the intervening galaxy bends the light of the quasar so that it follows two distinct paths to Earth, creating two images of unequal brightness. Crucially, the two light paths are of different lengths and so the light takes a different time to travel along each. In fact, astronomers find that when one image brightens, the other image brightens 417.1 days later.
But this is not what has been found by a team of astronomers from the US and the Ukraine, led by Rudolph Schild of the Harvard- Smithsonian Centre for Astrophysics. When they studied the two images, they noticed that, between September 1994 and July 1995, the two images brightened and faded at the same time - with no time delay The two images did this four times, on each occasion for a period of about 100 days.
The only way Schild and his colleagues can make sense of this behaviour is if, between September 1994 and July 1995, something moved across our line of sight to the quasar, simultaneously affecting the light coming down both paths to the Earth. The only thing that fits the bill, they claim, is a vibrating loop of cosmic string moving across the line of sight at about 70 per cent of the speed of light.
To oscillate once every 100 days or so, the loop has to be very small - no bigger than 1 per cent of the distance between the Sun and the nearest star. And Schild and his colleagues calculate that the string must be remarkably close to us - well within our Milky Way galaxy.
Most physicists remain sceptical about the evidence for cosmic superstrings. If the case is to be strengthened, it will be necessary to find more candidates like CSL-1 and Q0957+561A,B. Alternatively, it will be necessary to detect the "gravitational waves" coming from a string. These are ripples in the fabric of space, much like the ripples which spread out on a pond from an impacting raindrop.
Strings are travelling very fast. If they get a kink in them, it is possible for this part of the string to crack like a whip. The part producing the crack travels at almost the speed of light and should produce an intense burst of gravitational waves. As first pointed out by Thibault Damour of the Institut des Hautes etudes Scientifiques in Paris and Alex Vilenkin of Tufts Institute of Cosmology in the US, such signals could be detected in the next few years by Europe's Virgo detector or America's Laser Interferometric Gravitational-Wave Observatory.
String theory has long been criticised as that which makes no observable predictions about the universe we live in. If the discovery of cosmic superstrings holds up, the theory may finally have connected with reality and the critics may at last be silenced.
Marcus Chown is the author of `The Universe Next Door'
Submitted by: Stephanie Stack
Alligated on: 2005-03-02 19:01:36
EDIT: Had a sticky clipboard cause me to put the wrong link in initially. fixed now.
Original URL: http://www.rednova.com/news/space/132303/finding_the_ultimate_theory_of_everything/index.html
Farkesque Headline: Scientists confuse themselves about things nobody can understand
Source: The Independant; London, UK
-
http://people.na.infn.it/~longo/Ricerca/Cosmic_strings/csl1.htm
-
"Most physicists remain sceptical about the evidence for cosmic superstrings. If the case is to be strengthened, it will be necessary to find more candidates like CSL-1 and Q0957+561A,B. Alternatively, it will be necessary to detect the "gravitational waves" coming from a string. These are ripples in the fabric of space, much like the ripples which spread out on a pond from an impacting raindrop"
I concur with this... Until the case is strenghtened I would be inclined to stick with the standard model, a proven theory that has been resistant to all and every attempt to falsify it and thats predictions have been so remarkably accurate it would be reckless to abandon it...
-
"Most physicists remain sceptical about the evidence for cosmic superstrings. If the case is to be strengthened, it will be necessary to find more candidates like CSL-1 and Q0957+561A,B. Alternatively, it will be necessary to detect the "gravitational waves" coming from a string. These are ripples in the fabric of space, much like the ripples which spread out on a pond from an impacting raindrop"
I concur with this... Until the case is strenghtened I would be inclined to stick with the standard model, a proven theory that has been resistant to all and every attempt to falsify it and thats predictions have been so remarkably accurate it would be reckless to abandon it...
sure. but you asked for evidence. i provided it. according to the articles there is no other known expanation that covers what was observed in CSl-1 nad the two quasars.
-
"Most physicists remain sceptical about the evidence for cosmic superstrings. If the case is to be strengthened, it will be necessary to find more candidates like CSL-1 and Q0957+561A,B. Alternatively, it will be necessary to detect the "gravitational waves" coming from a string. These are ripples in the fabric of space, much like the ripples which spread out on a pond from an impacting raindrop"
I concur with this... Until the case is strenghtened I would be inclined to stick with the standard model, a proven theory that has been resistant to all and every attempt to falsify it and thats predictions have been so remarkably accurate it would be reckless to abandon it...
sure. but you asked for evidence. i provided it. according to the articles there is no other known expanation that covers what was observed in CSl-1 nad the two quasars.
Well, I still would rather wait until there has been more research done and a stronger case built before I join the Church of the Latter Day String Theorists... You know my manner by now... Always cautious when it comes to paradigm shifts...
-
That is perfectly understandable. but what you aught not to do is say there is no evidence for it. ;)
-
That is perfectly understandable. but what you aught not to do is say there is no evidence for it. ;)
Okay... No tangible evidence, or certainly nothing like enough to merit String Theory becoming String Law... String Theory is a badly botched together concept based on several unproven notions, and even if by some stroke of blind fortune it turns out to be close to the truth, it would still be a bad theory that flailed onto reality more by luck than judgement. Any theory that has the concept of an infinite number of permutuations as one of it's prime maxims has got to be considered suspect...
The Standard Model, on the other hand, is a good theory, despite being ugly and containing a number of arbitrary constants that serve no other purpose than to hold it togther, it describes reality in extremely exact detail and has really never been falsified in any detail. The standard model does not rely on the Universe, out of an infinite number of possible variations, turning out the way it did by sheer blind luck. String Theory stretches the credulity of even the most liberal theoretical scientist to the outer limits...
-
So... what you are saying is...
String Theory looks like someone just...
Strung it together?
:rofl:
-
That is perfectly understandable. but what you aught not to do is say there is no evidence for it. ;)
Okay... No tangible evidence, or certainly nothing like enough to merit String Theory becoming String Law... String Theory is a badly botched together concept based on several unproven notions, and even if by some stroke of blind fortune it turns out to be close to the truth, it would still be a bad theory that flailed onto reality more by luck than judgement. Any theory that has the concept of an infinite number of permutuations as one of it's prime maxims has got to be considered suspect...
The Standard Model, on the other hand, is a good theory, despite being ugly and containing a number of arbitrary constants that serve no other purpose than to hold it togther, it describes reality in extremely exact detail and has really never been falsified in any detail. The standard model does not rely on the Universe, out of an infinite number of possible variations, turning out the way it did by sheer blind luck. String Theory stretches the credulity of even the most liberal theoretical scientist to the outer limits...
there is evidence the standard model is flawed; that it either needs revision or abandoned. every thing you accuse the string theory of can equally be said of the standard model other than the string theory being far more elegant. you outlined some of the objections yourself; you say that the anthropomorphic principle is unbelievable yet you admit that the standard model is full of fudge factors to make it fit. in my view this amounts to the same objection. and if it is the case that these factors were added to make the standard model fit then it is the same thing as if the standard model has failed repeatedly.
-
So... what you are saying is...
String Theory looks like someone just...
Strung it together?
:rofl:
LOL. very funny! but actually it is more like someone "strung" the standard model together.
as far as strings go; it is likely that strings themselves represent multidimensional entities ('branes) poking into our dimensions. such strings being boundaries or crosssections of the intrusions that we interpret as "strings." that means that strings may not be the final theory of everything. otherwise the idea of squiggely strings being the building blocks of our universe is ludicrous.
-
there is evidence the standard model is flawed; that it either needs revision or abandoned. every thing you accuse the string theory of can equally be said of the standard model other than the string theory being far more elegant. you outlined some of the objections yourself; you say that the anthropomorphic principle is unbelievable yet you admit that the standard model is full of fudge factors to make it fit. in my view this amounts to the same objection. and if it is the case that these factors were added to make the standard model fit then it is the same thing as if the standard model has failed repeatedly.
You just hit the nail on the head... The standard model is full of fudge factors (in the shape of nineteen arbitrary constants) used to make it fit experimental reality...
The String Theory is full of a lot more fudge factors used to make it fit into a picture that we've invented...
String Theory predicts an infinite number of permutations in the forces we observe today, with no way to predict the outcome if we were to "reset" the Universe, while the standard model has predicited many particles with unprecedented accuracy...
-
LOL. very funny! but actually it is more like someone "strung" the standard model together.
as far as strings go; it is likely that strings themselves represent multidimensional entities ('branes) poking into our dimensions. such strings being boundaries or crosssections of the intrusions that we interpret as "strings." that means that strings may not be the final theory of everything. otherwise the idea of squiggely strings being the building blocks of our universe is ludicrous.
I agree with the last sentence, but these "branes" are purely Star Trekesque conjecture, as are the boundaries, cross-sections and intrusions you speak of... They are bryond science and are far more the domain of philosophers or mystics, and so they shall remain until we have made unforeseable leaps forward in our grasp of what space and time are...
-
So... what you are saying is...
String Theory looks like someone just...
Strung it together?
:rofl:
They are scientific proof of what results when theoretical physicists from the 1960's consume far too much LSD... :P
-
So they were all *strung* out? ;D
-
So they were all *strung* out? ;D
Oh.. you beat me to it.. that was so the next logical step in this string of events. :-X
-
Stormbringer note: This wikipedia article outlines the more well known problems with the standard model. there are more recent findings which call the standard model into question. remember the scientific maxim; it takes but one contradiction to false a scientific theory.
Challenges to the Standard Model
Although the Standard Model has had great success in explaining experimental results, it has never been accepted as a complete theory of fundamental physics. This is because it has two important defects:
The model contains 19 free parameters, such as particle masses, which must be determined experimentally (plus another 10 for neutrino masses). These parameters cannot be independently calculated.
The model does not describe the gravitational interaction.
Since the completion of the Standard Model, many efforts have been made to address these problems.
One attempt to address the first defect is known as grand unification. The so-called grand unified theories (GUTs) hypothesized that the SU(3), SU(2), and U(1) groups are actually subgroups of a single large symmetry group. At high energies (far beyond the reach of current experiments), the symmetry of the unifying group is preserved; at low energies, it reduces to SU(3)×SU(2)×U(1) by a process known as spontaneous symmetry breaking. The first theory of this kind was proposed in 1974 by Georgi and Glashow, using SU(5) as the unifying group. A distinguishing characteristic of these GUTs is that, unlike the Standard model, they predict the existence of proton decay. In 1999, the Super-Kamiokande neutrino observatory reported that it had not detected proton decay, establishing a lower limit on the proton half-life of 6.7× 1032 years. This and other experiments have falsified numerous GUTs, including SU(5). Another effort to address the first defect has been to develop Preon models which attempt to set forth a substructure of more fundamental particles than those set forth in the Standard Model.
In addition, there are cosmological reasons why the standard model is believed to be incomplete. Within it, matter and antimatter are symmetric. While the preponderance of matter in the universe can be explained by saying that the universe just started out this way, this explanation strikes most physicists as inelegant. Furthermore, the Standard Model provides no mechanism to generate the cosmic inflation that is believed to have occurred at the beginning of the universe, a consequence of its omission of gravity.
The Higgs boson, which is predicted by the Standard Model, has not been observed as of 2005 (though some phenomena were observed in the last days of the LEP collider that could be related to the Higgs; one of the reasons to build the LHC is that the increase in energy is expected to make the Higgs observable).
The first experimental deviation from the Standard Model came in 1998, when Super-Kamiokande published results indicating neutrino oscillation. This implied the existence of non-zero neutrino masses since massless particles travel at the speed of light and so do not experience the passage of time. The Standard Model did not accommodate massive neutrinos, because it assumed the existence of only "left-handed" neutrinos, which have spin aligned counter-clockwise to their axis of motion. If neutrinos have non-zero mass, they necessarily travel slower than the speed of light. Therefore, it would be possible to "overtake" a neutrino, choosing a reference frame in which its direction of motion is reversed without affecting its spin (making it right-handed). Since then, physicists have revised the Standard Model to allow neutrinos to have mass, which make up additional free parameters beyond the initial 19.
A further extension of the Standard Model can be found in the theory of supersymmetry, which proposes a massive supersymmetric "partner" for every particle in the conventional Standard Model. Supersymmetric particles have been suggested as a candidate for explaining dark matter. Although supersymmetric particles have not been observed experimentally to date, the theory is one of the most popular avenues of research in theoretical particle physics.
[edit]
See also
The theoretical formulation of the standard model
Weak interactions, Fermi theory of beta decay and electroweak theory
Strong interactions, flavour, quark model and quantum chromodynamics
For open questions, see quark matter, CP violation and neutrino masses
[edit]
References
[edit]
Textbooks
Griffiths, David J. (1987). Introduction to Elementary Particles, Wiley, John & Sons, Inc. ISBN 0471603864
[edit]
Journal Articles
Y. Hayato et al., Search for Proton Decay through p → νK+ in a Large Water Cherenkov Detector. Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, 1529 (1999).
S.F. Novaes, Standard Model: An Introduction, hep-ph:0001283
[edit]
External links
New Scientist story: Standard Model may be found incomplete
The Universe Is A Strange Place, a lecture by Frank Wilczek
Observation of the Top Quark at Fermilab
MISN-0-305 The Standard Model of Fundamental Particles and Their Interactions (PDF file) by Mesgun Sebhatu for Project PHYSNET.
PostScript version of the Standard Model Lagrangian
The particle adventure.
-
In order to make this counter gambit in anyway fair, and indeed scientific, you are of course beholden to point out the flaws noted by Wikipedia in String Theory, as I, in fairness have acknowledged the 19 arbitary constants in the Standard Model... You are not telling me anything I do not already know and acknoweldge about the Standard Model, and rubbishing it does not make String Theory appear to me anything less like a conversation between The Doctor and Seven Of Nine...
Whatever Wikipedia says is wrong with the Standard Model, multiply it by infinity (the potential permutations in String Theory), and you are approaching the standing that String Theory enjoys...
-
i was seeking some of the newer articles i have read on it in the last several years and used the wiki article because it summarised what is known concisely. however I do not think your infinite permutations equal infinite flaws is fair of strings. The same problem exists in the standard model with the everet and copenhagen interpretations of the wave function.
-
i was seeking some of the newer articles i have read on it in the last several years and used the wiki article because it summarised what is known concisely. however I do not think your infinite permutations equal infinite flaws is fair of strings. The same problem exists in the standard model with the everet and copenhagen interpretations of the wave function.
I don't think there is any doubt that the Everett Interpretation suffers certain Demarcation problems in the shape of a crippling amount of metaphysical baggage, or that the Copenhagen interpretation is incomplete. Personally, I feel that Quantum Mechanics illustrates the limitation in human perception... We are not Gods and we are never going to understand the Universe, pick it apart and put it together again as if it was an interanl combustion engine...
Hell, it's very difficult to visualise three dimensional space and impossible to visualise four dimensional space. Here's a good thought experiment... Try to visualise two hands holding up ten fingers. Easy. Try to visualise four hands holding up twenty fingers. Still Easy. Try to visualise ten hands holding up a hundred fingers. Very difficult. Now try to visualise 100,000 hands holding up a million fingers. Utterly beyond human capability. And a million is an insignificant number in astronomical terms...
I'm quite sure that my assertion that human beings do not possess infinite regression, and therefore have limitations will earn me the title pessimist. That is just silly. I accept we have limitations, I believe we are capable of mindboggling achievements and hellish nightmares, but understanding what the fundamental building blocks of the Universe are is a long ways away, and even when we do, it will be an abstract mathematical construct that a few specialists will each be able to understand bits and pieces of. The rest of us will be able to learn the implications of it, but no human will be able to visualise it or hold it in their minds, ever...
-
Perhaps. but perhaps not. They said the same of Einstein's theories. only a few people... etc. anyway the idea of the final theory is the one principle behind everything. by definition the elemental is always more simple than that which it composes. That is why neither of these theories can be considered final.
on the idea of imagining a multitude (complexity) can one imagine the individual atoms in a block of substance? is it necessary to visualize every atom to say we grasp chemistry, metalurgy, sculpting etc?
-
Einstein's theory of relativity was vindicated by experiments done with Caesium clocks, and if String Theory is vindicated by solid scientific experiment, I shall, of course, change my position and admit the truth in it... Until then, I shall reserve judgement on it...
Metallurgy is all very well, being able to manipulate quantum theory is all very well, but that is different from having a complete understanding of the most fundamental structure of the Universe...
-
No i referred to Einstein because it was said at the time only 6 people in the world could understand it; that it was to complex for all but the most hyper intelligent and hyper educated elite. Now it is quite common to run into someone who not only thinks they do but in fact actually do understand it. it's not that difficult.
-
No i referred to Einstein because it was said at the time only 6 people in the world could understand it; that it was to complex for all but the most hyper intelligent and hyper educated elite. Now it is quite common to run into someone who not only thinks they do but in fact actually do understand it. it's not that difficult.
Since relativity is so simple, then perhaps you can help me resolve this paradox?
When a massive object undergoes gravitational collapse and is crushed into a black hole, inside the Schwarzchild radius, nothing, not even particles with zero rest energy can escape... This means that no quanta can escape the Schwarchild Radius, including gravitons, since space time within that distance from the singularity is curved right back inwards towards the singularity...
Since Gravitons cannot escape, why does the black hole behave as a massive object with a powerful gravity field?
-
No i referred to Einstein because it was said at the time only 6 people in the world could understand it; that it was to complex for all but the most hyper intelligent and hyper educated elite. Now it is quite common to run into someone who not only thinks they do but in fact actually do understand it. it's not that difficult.
Since relativity is so simple, then perhaps you can help me resolve this paradox?
When a massive object undergoes gravitational collapse and is crushed into a black hole, inside the Schwarzchild radius, nothing, not even particles with zero rest energy can escape... This means that no quanta can escape the Schwarchild Radius, including gravitons, since space time within that distance from the singularity is curved right back inwards towards the singularity...
Since Gravitons cannot escape, why does the black hole behave as a massive object with a powerful gravity field?
Two reasons: firstly gravity can be modelled as curvature of space rather than gravitons. gravitons have not been observed. if they exist they have to have a nature related to that curve of space the very "fabric" they are made of is different than photons themselves a massless hadron exchange particle which isn't slowed so much as redirected. however the LIGO and other experiments have not verified that gravity waves and therefore gravitons even travel following the same restrictions photons do. Finally black holes can release particles via tunneling the so called Hawking radiation. they evaporate.
EDIT: I did not resort to relativity for those explanations; sorry. i never have had to in this context. i can look it up if you want.
-
Alternatively, gravitons could simply be viewed as just a quantization of gravitational force... rather, gravitationally related energy, much like a light wave can alternatively be viewed as a collection of photons.
And,
"modeling gravity as just the curvature of space" is just like saying there is a gravitational field in the region, and visualizing the region as rectilinear.
See, no one really understands fields, like magnetic, electric, or gravitational fields. Einstein never liked "spooky action at a distance" explanations, and his stature no doubt colors the minds of many younger scientists coming after him, philosophically. But something exists, be it a field, lines of force, gravitons, Maxwellian demons with nylon fishing lines yanking at things. Because we don't have a real handle on these things, we posit differently dressed, but equivalent attempts at explanation for them.
-
But while we can manipulate photons with fiber optic cables mirrors, polarized lenses shields and so forth we cannot say the same of gravitons. we cannot count gravitons but we can count photons.
-
Ah... gravity... now that's a heavy subject.
-
*Groan* ;)
-
No i referred to Einstein because it was said at the time only 6 people in the world could understand it; that it was to complex for all but the most hyper intelligent and hyper educated elite. Now it is quite common to run into someone who not only thinks they do but in fact actually do understand it. it's not that difficult.
Since relativity is so simple, then perhaps you can help me resolve this paradox?
When a massive object undergoes gravitational collapse and is crushed into a black hole, inside the Schwarzchild radius, nothing, not even particles with zero rest energy can escape... This means that no quanta can escape the Schwarchild Radius, including gravitons, since space time within that distance from the singularity is curved right back inwards towards the singularity...
Since Gravitons cannot escape, why does the black hole behave as a massive object with a powerful gravity field?
Two reasons: firstly gravity can be modelled as curvature of space rather than gravitons. gravitons have not been observed. if they exist they have to have a nature related to that curve of space the very "fabric" they are made of is different than photons themselves a massless hadron exchange particle which isn't slowed so much as redirected. however the LIGO and other experiments have not verified that gravity waves and therefore gravitons even travel following the same restrictions photons do. Finally black holes can release particles via tunneling the so called Hawking radiation. they evaporate.
EDIT: I did not resort to relativity for those explanations; sorry. i never have had to in this context. i can look it up if you want.
The effects of Hawking radiation are negligible, so let's forget about the second reason you've given here...
But you did resort to relativity.... Modeling gravity with Spacetime curvature is one of the prime maxims of relativity... You can see my point I assume? When you look at black holes thus, it becomes obvious why Quantum Theories of gravity break down with black holes... To model gravity as space time curvature , one needs to resort to using the Thoery of Relativity. In Quantum Thoery, with no particles escaping the black hole to create an interaction, there should be no gravity field around the black hole. This is a schism that may never be resolved...
-
Alternatively, gravitons could simply be viewed as just a quantization of gravitational force... rather, gravitationally related energy, much like a light wave can alternatively be viewed as a collection of photons.
And,
"modeling gravity as just the curvature of space" is just like saying there is a gravitational field in the region, and visualizing the region as rectilinear.
See, no one really understands fields, like magnetic, electric, or gravitational fields. Einstein never liked "spooky action at a distance" explanations, and his stature no doubt colors the minds of many younger scientists coming after him, philosophically. But something exists, be it a field, lines of force, gravitons, Maxwellian demons with nylon fishing lines yanking at things. Because we don't have a real handle on these things, we posit differently dressed, but equivalent attempts at explanation for them.
I concur...
-
But while we can manipulate photons with fiber optic cables mirrors, polarized lenses shields and so forth we cannot say the same of gravitons. we cannot count gravitons but we can count photons.
Personally, I don't believe they (gravitons) exist; and even when on paper, it's...
... bad framing.
-
But while we can manipulate photons with fiber optic cables mirrors, polarized lenses shields and so forth we cannot say the same of gravitons. we cannot count gravitons but we can count photons.
Personally, I don't believe they (gravitons) exist; and even when on paper, it's...
... bad framing.
Out of curiosity E_Look, do you have any opinions on what gravity actually is if it is not a Quantum Interaction?
-
First, that depends on what you mean by a "quantum interaction". If you mean basic quantum mechanics, then I don't really see a connection except insofar as to use quantum mathematical techniques and physical principles to *DESCRIBE* (not explain) empirically how gravity behaves. But I don't really see a quantization, or at least, I am not cognizant of, any quantization of energy due to gravitational interactions...
... now this won't apply to microscopic objects like atoms or subatomic particles, as any force or potential (well), as a gravity source, will cause quantization of energy levels.
So, my point is just that you might be able to call it a "quantum interaction" if there is observable quantization with respect to its energies, but this can exist really only for tiny particles, not huge things like planets, meteors, or even people or microbes.
That is, two subatomic particles, say, can approach each other and their native gravitational attractions, small as it might be as gravity's pull is based on amount of mass present, just might exhibit additional quantum effects due to yet another force acting upon them, even if from each other.
Now, if two asteroids or stars approach each other, I think the quantum effects will be lost in the wash way before people even realized these large objects might be on a collision course.
It really is a matter of scale!
But hey, Storm, don't stop, as I've said before. Despite my sour countenance, there ARE a few GOOD ideas out there, and if nothing else, you're educating yourself (and me, too) like you might not believe!
-
Ah! I think I finally see what you mean! Correct me if I'm wrong:
Yes, there will be quantum effects due to gravitational attraction, as any potential well can give rise to quantization effects on the microscopic level. And, the summation of all those little quanta of energy DOES add up to the macroscopic (astronomical, too) gravitational effects we can more easily observe.
So, in that sense, yes, there can be the possiblility of quantum mechanical effects due to the gravitational attractions all mass has, no matter (sorry for the unintentional pun) what its size is.
Now, as to the very nature of that gravitational attraction, NO ONE but God knows... literally.
-
Two types of time machine have been put forward recently both involved closed space like loops or varient space metrics. I've noticed a trend both methods ran into a similar limitation. both could allow time travel into the past *but only to the point in time where the machine was turned on.* all other methods either shunted the traveller into an alternate timeline or to the end of the universe so they could not effect the past.
both of the two limited time travel methods are generally agreed by subject matter experts to be allowed by the known laws of physics.
Does this nexus of commonality between the two methods suggests a heretofore hidden principle of space-time?
The latest method is covered in this month's popular science magazine both on line and in the hard copy.
-
First, that depends on what you mean by a "quantum interaction". If you mean basic quantum mechanics, then I don't really see a connection except insofar as to use quantum mathematical techniques and physical principles to *DESCRIBE* (not explain) empirically how gravity behaves. But I don't really see a quantization, or at least, I am not cognizant of, any quantization of energy due to gravitational interactions...
... now this won't apply to microscopic objects like atoms or subatomic particles, as any force or potential (well), as a gravity source, will cause quantization of energy levels.
So, my point is just that you might be able to call it a "quantum interaction" if there is observable quantization with respect to its energies, but this can exist really only for tiny particles, not huge things like planets, meteors, or even people or microbes.
That is, two subatomic particles, say, can approach each other and their native gravitational attractions, small as it might be as gravity's pull is based on amount of mass present, just might exhibit additional quantum effects due to yet another force acting upon them, even if from each other.
Now, if two asteroids or stars approach each other, I think the quantum effects will be lost in the wash way before people even realized these large objects might be on a collision course.
It really is a matter of scale!
But hey, Storm, don't stop, as I've said before. Despite my sour countenance, there ARE a few GOOD ideas out there, and if nothing else, you're educating yourself (and me, too) like you might not believe!
I agree, but you must conceed that anyone who speaks of "gravitons" is postualting, whether they unserstand what they are saying or not, the existance of a quanta for gravitational interactions...
For myself, I have no opinion as yet whether gravity has a quanta or not, but with the evidence available at the moment, I would tend to be biased towards not....
-
Two types of time machine have been put forward recently both involved closed space like loops or varient space metrics. I've noticed a trend both methods ran into a similar limitation. both could allow time travel into the past *but only to the point in time where the machine was turned on.* all other methods either shunted the traveller into an alternate timeline or to the end of the universe so they could not effect the past.
both of the two limited time travel methods are generally agreed by subject matter experts to be allowed by the known laws of physics.
Does this nexus of commonality between the two methods suggests a heretofore hidden principle of space-time?
The latest method is covered in this month's popular science magazine both on line and in the hard copy.
It sounds more than a little far fetched to me...
-
Now reading Scientific american's article; the illusion of gravity (holographic physics may explain nature's most elusive force.)
-
Hmmmm. String based quantum gravity descriptions actually work in Anti-DE Sitter space metrics. [...still studying it]
-
A quantum gravity theory in the interior of a anti-De-Sitter space time is compoletely equivelent to an ordinary quantum particle theory on the boudary of the ADS space. if this equivelence is true it means you can use quantum particle theory to define a quantum gravity theory. the beauty of this is that objects on the interior of an ADS experience gravity even though a distinct gravitational interaction does not exist on the surface of the anti-de-sitter space. thus a black hole is the equivelent of a swarm of interacting particles on the boudary surface of space time. Strings on the boundary area represent particles in the interior space. Strings are chains of gluons. {but one type of gluon chain behaves exactly like our elusive gravitons. Gravity is an emergent condition arising from particle interactions in a gravityless three dimensional world. Thus the holographic corespondence not only links string theory (quantum gravity) to theories of quarks and gluons it also helps define what the string theory equations must look like.
-
Using this model physics does not breakdown in blackholes and statistical mechanics can be used to derive exactly by a different type of math the temperature of the hawking radiation. exactly. Going the reverse diraction the holographic model has been used to deduce the shere viscosity of a quark-gluon plasma. This prediction was confirmed by experiments using the RHIC at brookhaven national laboratory. obvioslt there is something to it when it can make predictions which turn out to be true, however anti De-sitter space is not as complex as our space time and extending the ADS to our level of complexity involves such complexity of math that it is currently impossible to accomplish.
-
OK, who's the hater who downgraded my thread's rating? :o
-
OK, who's the hater who downgraded my thread's rating? :o
Not me man, I've had a great time with this thread! :)
-
You know it wasn't me... I'm part of the thread!
I wish the angry dude out there would just post his feelings (in a polite manner) instead of just sniping. Ah well, this is old ground. I wish this hadn't happened; I don't like the smell of dead horses.
-
indeed. there are only a handful of people you can discuss this stuff with out of common interests. after all how often does "Anti-De Sitter space" come up in ordinary conversation?
-
The only other time was when my kids were babies; I guess they didn't want the babysitter in their play area... ::) :P
But seriously, all these things, as De Sitter spaces, gluon strings, etc., are hypothetical. I truly wish there was either an alternative to the string theories and the standard model, or at least a more "beefed up" standard model that not only has its general all-around accuracy and facets that might point the way out of the "missing mass" or "wrong direction shifts" problems we see in astrophysics...
... anyway, as far as I recall, no one has truly "observed" quarks, either, though the predictive mathematics behind it is established...
-
Well quarks observed or more properly detected. yes they have.
as to strings this principle actually explains why in the heck a string would manifest as an elemental building block of matter. it's stringiness is emergent and the underlying block is really a gluon. kind of elegant. and it has a couple of verified predictions to it's credit al ready. i kind of like it.
-
If you're right, I agree.
Oh, by the way, +1 for all your efforts in threads like this!
-
Thanks. of course if i understand it properly; they cannot carry the holographic idea out of ADS and into a more complex metric involving the proper number of dimensions for our type of space because the mathematics is " too complex" to be worked out. This sounds odd to me but math is not my strong suit. as a consequence they cannot finalize a final quantum gravity theory from it but only a approximation even though they got good predictions on a couple of parameters from it. So they have a way to go.
-
Hmmmm. String based quantum gravity descriptions actually work in Anti-DE Sitter space metrics. [...still studying it]
Current data, unless I've misunderstood, suggests that we don't live in an Anti De Sitter space time metric... if anything, quite the reverse...
-
What if we actually live in an anti-matter universe, and what we think is anti-matter is really matter?
Quantum Physics: Does it really matter?
-
Hmmmm. String based quantum gravity descriptions actually work in Anti-DE Sitter space metrics. [...still studying it]
Current data, unless I've misunderstood, suggests that we don't live in an Anti De Sitter space time metric... if anything, quite the reverse...
That is true but you have missed the point.
-
What if we actually live in an anti-matter universe, and what we think is anti-matter is really matter?
Quantum Physics: Does it really matter?
Well tellingthe actual shape of the universe is tricky. it is possible that we will never know the "shape" of the universe.
-
What if we actually live in an anti-matter universe, and what we think is anti-matter is really matter?
What's in a name? We only call it antimatter because it has opposing fields to the kind of matter that we know and love...
-
Current data, unless I've misunderstood, suggests that we don't live in an Anti De Sitter space time metric... if anything, quite the reverse...
That is true but you have missed the point.
Oh?
-
We really have no certain knowledge of what kind of space we reside in in regards to large scale curvature and even dimensions. but the holographic model can be extended to whatever space type it's just a matter of mastering the math. the model already has been used to both predict new observations (subsequently confirmed) and independantly confirm another via an approach completely different from how it was first postulated. thats without being complete. it points a way out ofthe absurdity of strings as a fundamental property without really doing away with the concept in a most satisfying way. it also explains some of the paradoxes about gravity vis a vis black holes.
The people involved of course realize that we are not in an ADS space. by developing it and then extending it into the proper space it will solve quantum gravity and reconsile it with quantum particle models. a very tidy package if you ask me.
-
Current data, unless I've misunderstood, suggests that we don't live in an Anti De Sitter space time metric... if anything, quite the reverse...
That is true but you have missed the point.
Oh?
yes. i said in a previous post: Using this model physics does not breakdown in blackholes and statistical mechanics can be used to derive exactly by a different type of math the temperature of the hawking radiation. exactly. Going the reverse diraction the holographic model has been used to deduce the shere viscosity of a quark-gluon plasma. This prediction was confirmed by experiments using the RHIC at brookhaven national laboratory. obviosly there is something to it when it can make predictions which turn out to be true, however anti De-sitter space is not as complex as our space time and extending the ADS to our level of complexity involves such complexity of math that it is currently impossible to accomplish.
-
Let's try an analogy (an I hope i do not mangle this...) Feynman or Ven diagrams are used for certain problems in physics. they have spatial components represented in two dimensions. they do not represent the complete model of the universe as it actually is (whatever that may be...) Yet they do make proper predictions about the subjects they are used for. If those diagrams could be extended to actually coincide with the complete spatial model they would be capable of making even more predictions about the universe. no one discouts the diagrams because they are not a complete representation. In the same way, should the hollographic model ever make the mathematical leap to inclusion of the proper space metric... do you see what i mean?
-
I do see what you mean, but the Feynman diagrams don't have anstronomical numbers of possible permutations...
Superstrings at the moment are still a temple that has been built without foundations...
-
Current data, unless I've misunderstood, suggests that we don't live in an Anti De Sitter space time metric... if anything, quite the reverse...
That is true but you have missed the point.
Oh?
yes. i said in a previous post: Using this model physics does not breakdown in blackholes and statistical mechanics can be used to derive exactly by a different type of math the temperature of the hawking radiation. exactly. Going the reverse diraction the holographic model has been used to deduce the shere viscosity of a quark-gluon plasma. This prediction was confirmed by experiments using the RHIC at brookhaven national laboratory. obviosly there is something to it when it can make predictions which turn out to be true, however anti De-sitter space is not as complex as our space time and extending the ADS to our level of complexity involves such complexity of math that it is currently impossible to accomplish.
Using relativity, gravitational models do not break down in black holes either, and relativity has been ratified by experiment... It may be that there is no Quantum Theory of gravity because gravity doesn't have a Quanta, and that the last seventy years trying to find a model that allows one has been a red herring...
-
Current data, unless I've misunderstood, suggests that we don't live in an Anti De Sitter space time metric... if anything, quite the reverse...
That is true but you have missed the point.
Oh?
yes. i said in a previous post: Using this model physics does not breakdown in blackholes and statistical mechanics can be used to derive exactly by a different type of math the temperature of the hawking radiation. exactly. Going the reverse diraction the holographic model has been used to deduce the shere viscosity of a quark-gluon plasma. This prediction was confirmed by experiments using the RHIC at brookhaven national laboratory. obviosly there is something to it when it can make predictions which turn out to be true, however anti De-sitter space is not as complex as our space time and extending the ADS to our level of complexity involves such complexity of math that it is currently impossible to accomplish.
Using relativity, gravitational models do not break down in black holes either, and relativity has been ratified by experiment... It may be that there is no Quantum Theory of gravity because gravity doesn't have a Quanta, and that the last seventy years trying to find a model that allows one has been a red herring...
in the holographic model the gravity quanta is an emergent phenomenon not a real particle in it's own right.
-
I do see what you mean, but the Feynman diagrams don't have anstronomical numbers of possible permutations...
Superstrings at the moment are still a temple that has been built without foundations...
under the hollographic model niether do strings. only certain permutations.
-
Using relativity, gravitational models do not break down in black holes either, and relativity has been ratified by experiment... It may be that there is no Quantum Theory of gravity because gravity doesn't have a Quanta, and that the last seventy years trying to find a model that allows one has been a red herring...
This may be why the Eötvös experiment hasn't been mentioned much in the last ten or so years... I guess the "lack of (anti)gravitons" may have removed the foundation for any of the more aggressive hypothesizing based on it.
-
OTOH if "gravitons are really emergent behavior as predicted by the holographic model then mass independant synthesis of gravity would be (might be) "easy (?)"
-
I do see what you mean, but the Feynman diagrams don't have anstronomical numbers of possible permutations...
Superstrings at the moment are still a temple that has been built without foundations...
under the hollographic model niether do strings. only certain permutations.
Aye, a hell of a lot of them... Too many in fact for String Theory to be complete and viable...
-
I do see what you mean, but the Feynman diagrams don't have anstronomical numbers of possible permutations...
Superstrings at the moment are still a temple that has been built without foundations...
under the hollographic model niether do strings. only certain permutations.
Aye, a hell of a lot of them... Too many in fact for String Theory to be complete and viable...
I did not get that understanding from reading the article on holographic theory. in fact i thought there were relatively few species of them. relatively speaking. somewhere in between one hundred and 200. but then it's been a while since i read it and i could have misremembered this part.
-
Using relativity, gravitational models do not break down in black holes either, and relativity has been ratified by experiment... It may be that there is no Quantum Theory of gravity because gravity doesn't have a Quanta, and that the last seventy years trying to find a model that allows one has been a red herring...
This may be why the Eötvös experiment hasn't been mentioned much in the last ten or so years... I guess the "lack of (anti)gravitons" may have removed the foundation for any of the more aggressive hypothesizing based on it.
Yeah, I agree... The problem here I suppose is that not finding gravitons does not prove that they don't exist, it only proves that we can't find them...
Curiosity: does anyone know what the received wisdom on what kind of properties we'd expect to find in gravitons? Most of the information I have found on them is at best vague and at worst non existant...
-
I do see what you mean, but the Feynman diagrams don't have anstronomical numbers of possible permutations...
Superstrings at the moment are still a temple that has been built without foundations...
under the hollographic model niether do strings. only certain permutations.
Aye, a hell of a lot of them... Too many in fact for String Theory to be complete and viable...
I did not get that understanding from reading the article on holographic theory. in fact i thought there were relatively few species of them. relatively speaking. somewhere in between one hundred and 200. but then it's been a while since i read it and i could have misremembered this part.
I've never read that particular brand of string theory... To be honest, I used to love String Theory when I was younger, I thought it ws a kind of return to the music of the spheres, and I was known to use LSD back then, but as I've gotten more scientifically cyncial of way out cosmological theories, I've stopped even bothering to read any new slants on string theory... To be honest, I will not entertain it or any variant of it until our fundamental understanding of space and time is changed in such a way that I'm forced to accept such a theory by a massive body of experimental evidence...
-
Using relativity, gravitational models do not break down in black holes either, and relativity has been ratified by experiment... It may be that there is no Quantum Theory of gravity because gravity doesn't have a Quanta, and that the last seventy years trying to find a model that allows one has been a red herring...
This may be why the Eötvös experiment hasn't been mentioned much in the last ten or so years... I guess the "lack of (anti)gravitons" may have removed the foundation for any of the more aggressive hypothesizing based on it.
Yeah, I agree... The problem here I suppose is that not finding gravitons does not prove that they don't exist, it only proves that we can't find them...
Curiosity: does anyone know what the received wisdom on what kind of properties we'd expect to find in gravitons? Most of the information I have found on them is at best vague and at worst non existant...
According to the theory they are not particles in the ordinary sense but a configuration of a chain of gluons that mimic one. so i guess my question is what are the postulated properties for a gluon?
-
Using relativity, gravitational models do not break down in black holes either, and relativity has been ratified by experiment... It may be that there is no Quantum Theory of gravity because gravity doesn't have a Quanta, and that the last seventy years trying to find a model that allows one has been a red herring...
This may be why the Eötvös experiment hasn't been mentioned much in the last ten or so years... I guess the "lack of (anti)gravitons" may have removed the foundation for any of the more aggressive hypothesizing based on it.
Yeah, I agree... The problem here I suppose is that not finding gravitons does not prove that they don't exist, it only proves that we can't find them...
Curiosity: does anyone know what the received wisdom on what kind of properties we'd expect to find in gravitons? Most of the information I have found on them is at best vague and at worst non existant...
According to the theory they are not particles in the ordinary sense but a configuration of a chain of gluons that mimic one. so i guess my question is what are the postulated properties for a gluon?
Surely this would make the Quantum Theory of gravity even more difficult to explain? Gluons, if I remember my standard model correctly, have mass, ergo are even more (an oxymoron coming up here, I know) hard pushed if anyrhing to escape a black hole than photons?
-
Yabut! thier domain takes them out of that trap the univers is treated as if it is two coterminous universes with behavior in one effecting the other as stuff on the interior manifests on the outer boundary layer. what we see as particles at one place appears as strings in the other but thier true nature is not a string but particles where we are. the exception is the graviton. which is an emergent phenomenon gravitonsa are only apparent but not (stritly speaking) real.
-
Yabut! thier domain takes them out of that trap the univers is treated as if it is two coterminous universes with behavior in one effecting the other as stuff on the interior manifests on the outer boundary layer. what we see as particles at one place appears as strings in the other but thier true nature is not a string but particles where we are. the exception is the graviton. which is an emergent phenomenon gravitonsa are only apparent but not (stritly speaking) real.
Invoking another Universe to explain away a theoretical anomoly in this one definitely stretches credulity to breaking point...
-
Yabut! thier domain takes them out of that trap the univers is treated as if it is two coterminous universes with behavior in one effecting the other as stuff on the interior manifests on the outer boundary layer. what we see as particles at one place appears as strings in the other but thier true nature is not a string but particles where we are. the exception is the graviton. which is an emergent phenomenon gravitonsa are only apparent but not (stritly speaking) real.
Invoking another Universe to explain away a theoretical anomoly in this one definitely stretches credulity to breaking point...
technically it is the same universe. i mispoke. the boundary area is in the same universe but it is a technical infinity away from the "interior. Anti de sitter space is not easy to visualize but then niether is de sitter space.
-
Some advice I posted in another thread (and I think is funny enough to repeat):
The subtle difference between genius and stupidity is this: Genius is limited by the laws of physics. ;D
-
technically it is the same universe. i mispoke. the boundary area is in the same universe but it is a technical infinity away from the "interior. Anti de sitter space is not easy to visualize but then niether is de sitter space.
That still sounds like an affront to some important scientific precepts to me, like Occam's Razor for one...
-
How is it any moreso that the notion that our universe is infinite but bounded?
-
Heyyy...
whaddaya tryin to infer here, Drac??
-
He was just joking. but i disagree. i think the laws of (understanding of) physics are limited by genius. ;D
-
Heyyy...
whaddaya tryin to infer here, Drac??
LOL.. actually nothing.. this just seems an appropriate thread for something limited by physics. :D
-
How is it any moreso that the notion that our universe is infinite but bounded?
Quite honestly, I see no proof of this assertion either... We still do not know what the Universe is...
-
But that is the generally accepted description amongst scientists.
-
But that is the generally accepted description amongst scientists.
I don't think there is any hard and fast generally accepted description among scientists on what the Universe is... From reading scientific journals, I've noticed there are as many ideas about what the Universe is as there are scientists...
It certainly looks like a 3 Space +1 time dimensional hypersphere, but only time (arf arf, no pun intended) will tell...
-
I disagree. for decades the question was: is there enough matter in the universe to render it closed? will there be a big crunch? or will the expansion go on for ever and die in ice rahter than fire? or is the mass ballanced with the expansion so at some point it will reach homeostasis and neither expand nor contract. each of these options dictated the universe have a certain shape. from a saddle to a torus to a sphere...Since they thought the universe was closed and would contract to a big crunch then that assosiated shape was the shape that scientist accepted by default if you will.
-
I disagree. for decades the question was: is there enough matter in the universe to render it closed? will there be a big crunch? or will the expansion go on for ever and die in ice rahter than fire? or is the mass ballanced with the expansion so at some point it will reach homeostasis and neither expand nor contract. each of these options dictated the universe have a certain shape. from a saddle to a torus to a sphere...Since they thought the universe was closed and would contract to a big crunch then that assosiated shape was the shape that scientist accepted by default if you will.
Current data observed from type Ia supernovae suggests that expansion is accelarating and there will be no big crunch... Whether that data will stand the test of time remains to be seen...
-
Is Earth In A Vortex Of Space-Time?
http://www.spacedaily.com/news/gravity-05r.html
An artist's concept of twisted space-time around Earth. More.
by Patrick L. Barry for NASA Science News
Huntsville AL (SPX) Nov 17, 2005
We'll soon know the answer: A NASA/Stanford physics experiment called Gravity Probe B (GP-B) recently finished a year of gathering science data in Earth orbit. The results, which will take another year to analyze, should reveal the shape of space-time around Earth--and, possibly, the vortex.
Time and space, according to Einstein's theories of relativity, are woven together, forming a four-dimensional fabric called "space-time." The tremendous mass of Earth dimples this fabric, much like a heavy person sitting in the middle of a trampoline. Gravity, says Einstein, is simply the motion of objects following the curvaceous lines of the dimple.
If Earth were stationary, that would be the end of the story. But Earth is not stationary. Our planet spins, and the spin should twist the dimple, slightly, pulling it around into a 4-dimensional swirl. This is what GP-B went to space to check
The idea behind the experiment is simple:
Put a spinning gyroscope into orbit around the Earth, with the spin axis pointed toward some distant star as a fixed reference point. Free from external forces, the gyroscope's axis should continue pointing at the star--forever. But if space is twisted, the direction of the gyroscope's axis should drift over time. By noting this change in direction relative to the star, the twists of space-time could be measured.
In practice, the experiment is tremendously difficult.
The four gyroscopes in GP-B are the most perfect spheres ever made by humans. These ping pong-sized balls of fused quartz and silicon are 1.5 inches across and never vary from a perfect sphere by more than 40 atomic layers. If the gyroscopes weren't so spherical, their spin axes would wobble even without the effects of relativity.
According to calculations, the twisted space-time around Earth should cause the axes of the gyros to drift merely 0.041 arcseconds over a year. An arcsecond is 1/3600th of a degree. To measure this angle reasonably well, GP-B needed a fantastic precision of 0.0005 arcseconds. It's like measuring the thickness of a sheet of paper held edge-on 100 miles away.
GP-B researchers invented whole new technologies to make this possible. They developed a "drag free" satellite that could brush against the outer layers of Earth's atmosphere without disturbing the gyros. They figured out how to keep Earth's penetrating magnetic field out of the spacecraft. And they concocted a device to measure the spin of a gyro--without touching the gyro.
Pulling off the experiment was an exceptional challenge. A lot of time and money was on the line, but the GP-B scientists appear to have done it.
"There were not any major surprises" in the experiment's performance, says physics professor Francis Everitt, the Principal Investigator for GP-B at Stanford University. Now that data-taking is complete, he says the mood among the GP-B scientists is "a lot of enthusiasm, and a realization also that a lot of grinding hard work is ahead of us."
A careful, thorough analysis of the data is underway. The scientists will do it in three stages, Everitt explains. First, they will look at the data from each day of the year-long experiment, checking for irregularities. Next they'll break the data into roughly month-long chunks, and finally they'll look at the whole year. By doing it this way, the scientists should be able to find any problems that a more simple analysis might miss.
Eventually scientists around the world will scrutinize the data. Says Everitt, "we want our sternest critics to be us."
The stakes are high. If they detect the vortex, precisely as expected, it simply means that Einstein was right, again. But what if they don't? There might be a flaw in Einstein's theory, a tiny discrepancy that heralds a revolution in physics.
First, though, there are a lot of data to analyze. Stay tuned.
Look. a varient space metric where the normal dimensions are twisted up artificially. imagine that!
-
I'm gonna put my money on Einstein, but I'll be watching this space with fascination!
-
I'm gonna put my money on Einstein, but I'll be watching this space with fascination!
hopefully we won't have to wait the entire year for further developments. regardlesseinstein's theories can exist simultaneously with other theroies. they are not always mutually exclusive. i look forward to it bcasue it can show that altered space time metrics can exist within his framework.
-
I'm gonna put my money on Einstein, but I'll be watching this space with fascination!
hopefully we won't have to wait the entire year for further developments. regardlesseinstein's theories can exist simultaneously with other theroies. they are not always mutually exclusive. i look forward to it bcasue it can show that altered space time metrics can exist within his framework.
Speaking of such, I used to have some great animations of the various stages of falling into a black hole, but that was three of four hard disks ago and I can't recall where they were... I think I'm gonna consult google on that one...
-
Wouldn't Netwon apply as well? A body in motion tends to travel in a straight line unless acted upon by an outside force?
-
Wouldn't Netwon apply as well? A body in motion tends to travel in a straight line unless acted upon by an outside force?
Einstein's theory of gravity is basically a refinement of Newton's theory to explain the anomolies that creep in at high velocities or in the vicinity of dense massive objects...
-
Hey, I noticed some mention of p-branes earlier, but no particular mention of the overarching theory behind them, ekpyrotic(sp?) universe theory, something I saw most recently in Stephen Hawking's The Universe in a Nutshell
BTW, it's nice to know I'm not the only cosmology hobbyist out there.