Science/physics geeks look here

**Kärnfysikern** · 08-25-2005, 09:17 AM

http://www.gallup.unm.edu/~smarandac...nAdventure.pdf

its about faster then light travel beeing perfectly possible and the speed of light not beeing a barrier at all.

The fact that its written by 2 mathematics/enginers makes it a bit less valid I guess but its a very interesting read nontheless.

Its 57 pages though and Im at page 25 now

ohh well read it anyway

***Giantz11*** · 08-25-2005, 09:30 AM

Can I just get a summary

**Kärnfysikern** · 08-25-2005, 11:16 AM

no

**MatrixGuy** · 08-25-2005, 11:44 AM

Thanx bro! I will have to read it when i have a spare 2 days...

I always thought humans could never travel at that speed though? Unless they plan not to have humans onboard this "thing"

**Kärnfysikern** · 08-25-2005, 11:53 AM

they claim there is NO speed limit in the universe. They just interpret the special relativity theory a bit differently and the conclusions they make doesnt seem to go against special relativity at all.

They claim anything that propell itself(like a rocket)can reach infinite speeds. We have never seen that simply because we havent tried and are not advanced enough yet. The fact that particles in particle accelerators isnt able to break the speed of light is because we try to "push" it to that speed but the speed of the push can never exceed the speed of light so neither can the particle. Kind of like a sailboat. It can never go faster then the wind that pushes it.

They also claim the added mass and shrinking dimensions and time dilation is just a matter of perspective. The mass gain wouldnt effect a rocket it would only look like it does when observing it from another place.

Thats the sum of it, so I did sum it up for you giantz lol

**Captain_test** · 08-25-2005, 12:06 PM

Johan..very interesting stuff..you read anything about "Folding" space?

**Kärnfysikern** · 08-25-2005, 12:08 PM

captain same as warping space I recon? have read abit about stuff like that but I think its hard considering the incredible ammounts of energy it needs and possible exotic matter requierments. Would be cool if we can do it though I would love wormhole technology even more then faster then light vehicles

**Captain_test** · 08-25-2005, 12:11 PM

Same...Well I mean wormholes do exist right? isnt that kind of like a fold in space? Those are something I would love to learn about...I'm not very educated on Physics or Quantum Mechanics but I definitely am interested.. What are some good things to read starting out? Have you seen "What the %^*# Do We Know?" very interesting movie!

**Kärnfysikern** · 08-25-2005, 12:17 PM

No one is sure wormholes exist as far as I know. They are possible so I hope they do. Some claim black holes is wormholes that ends in a white hole. But the existance of white holes is not confirmed. Dont know enough about quantum physics either to say anything but I love reading about it. Ask me again in 3 years or so when I have finished my education

Hawkings books is always good to begin with. Also the dude writing about string theory is awsome. Brian greene or something like that. Cant remember right now.

Einsteins book about the relativity theories is very good

never heard of that movie?

**Kärnfysikern** · 08-25-2005, 12:20 PM

one thing I find interesting is the possible energy found in vacum. I read somwhere that a cubic centimeter of vaccum possibly contains enough energy to boil away all the oceans on earth. Imagine tapping into that!!

**Captain_test** · 08-25-2005, 12:21 PM

Oh man you gotta rent it (Not sure if its available in sweden)

http://www.whatthebleep.com/synopsis/

**Kärnfysikern** · 08-25-2005, 12:22 PM

looks interesting Il do a search for it in the movie stores

**Kärnfysikern** · 08-25-2005, 12:47 PM

just mailed this article to 2 of my physics professors I hope they can let me know if its just bullshit or plausible. I guess a open mind is needed aswell.

If anyone else here reads it let me know what you think!

**samoth** · 08-26-2005, 04:41 PM

I didn't read the whole thing; just paged through it. Without any mathematics to support the paper, it seems to be more of a conceptually worded idea/hypothesis written to open people's minds up a bit and make them think. Nothing whatsoever that would stand up to any formal mathematical or physical analysis or criticism. I'm certainly not trying to bash it or anything; more just pointing out that there's nothing new, cutting edge, experimental, or mathematically plausible. Just more of a 'what if' approach to physics from a liberal arts standpoint.

The 100 years in physics thing last year spawned a lot of attention to this sort of thing.

**armwrestler22** · 08-26-2005, 05:06 PM

i dont beleive that exerpt. light has no mas whatsoever, and nothing can travel as fast as light that has any mass whatsoever. not even the theoretical neutrino, just because it has the mass similar to that of an electron.

**bigJJ** · 08-27-2005, 03:08 AM

Killer! Thanks for the read. I was looking for something to do tomorrow afternoon.

Post again if you get any feedback from your physics profs.

And last I heard, neutrinos aren't theoretical. Neutrino atronomy and neutrino astrophysics have been studied since the late '80's

For a primer of this type of physics, read Brian Greene's "The Elegant Universe" (though he has some great scholarly work on it as well). For even cooler stuff try anything by John Wheeler, Alan Guth or Kip Thorne (obviously Steven Hawking as well). Guth's "The Inflationary Universe" is a fantastic read.

**bigJJ** · 08-27-2005, 03:17 AM

Originally Posted by johan

one thing I find interesting is the possible energy found in vacum. I read somwhere that a cubic centimeter of vaccum possibly contains enough energy to boil away all the oceans on earth. Imagine tapping into that!!

Look into Inflation Theory. The potential energy in a vacuum can do cool things. Either by way of Quantum "Virtual Particles" or a "false vacuum" (I believe it's called that. Part of the guiding principal of Inflation Theory)

**big an rich** · 08-27-2005, 06:18 AM

WOW. My friends all think that big roid users are all thick. They are incorrect it seems.

**Kärnfysikern** · 08-27-2005, 08:51 AM

Originally Posted by samoth

I didn't read the whole thing; just paged through it. Without any mathematics to support the paper, it seems to be more of a conceptually worded idea/hypothesis written to open people's minds up a bit and make them think. Nothing whatsoever that would stand up to any formal mathematical or physical analysis or criticism. I'm certainly not trying to bash it or anything; more just pointing out that there's nothing new, cutting edge, experimental, or mathematically plausible. Just more of a 'what if' approach to physics from a liberal arts standpoint.

The 100 years in physics thing last year spawned a lot of attention to this sort of thing.

I think this is the "dumbed" down version. Atleast I hope so cause it would be wierd if 2 mathematics release a theory without atleast mathematic proof

What do you think of the points raised in the article? The explanation they give from there point of view why particle accelerators can never exceed speed of light ect? I wish I knew enough about this to be able to look at it from all sides.

have you read Florentin Smarandache "proof" that information can travel faster then the speed of light via quantum entanglement? Cant say I understand it but it seems interesting.

Do you personaly belive we will ever break the light barrier btw? To me the most depressing thing imaginable would be if we are forever trapped by that speed limit. Stuck in a boring corner of the galaxy just able to observe the universe never explore it.

**Kärnfysikern** · 08-27-2005, 09:11 AM

Originally Posted by bigJJ

Killer! Thanks for the read. I was looking for something to do tomorrow afternoon.

Post again if you get any feedback from your physics profs.

And last I heard, neutrinos aren't theoretical. Neutrino atronomy and neutrino astrophysics have been studied since the late '80's

For a primer of this type of physics, read Brian Greene's "The Elegant Universe" (though he has some great scholarly work on it as well). For even cooler stuff try anything by John Wheeler, Alan Guth or Kip Thorne (obviously Steven Hawking as well). Guth's "The Inflationary Universe" is a fantastic read.

Il defenetly post if they respond. Il look into those books aswell was ages ago that I read some good books about this. Thanks

**juicehoe** · 08-27-2005, 09:56 AM

Remember scientists used to think the sound barrier couldn't be broken. Even told the X project pilots it couldn't be done. They didn't listen to the warning and look how many planes that are supersonic now. food for thought

**3Vandoo** · 08-27-2005, 12:00 PM

beam me up Johan!

**armwrestler22** · 08-27-2005, 01:10 PM

Originally Posted by bigJJ

Killer! Thanks for the read. I was looking for something to do tomorrow afternoon.

Post again if you get any feedback from your physics profs.

And last I heard, neutrinos aren't theoretical. Neutrino atronomy and neutrino astrophysics have been studied since the late '80's

For a primer of this type of physics, read Brian Greene's "The Elegant Universe" (though he has some great scholarly work on it as well). For even cooler stuff try anything by John Wheeler, Alan Guth or Kip Thorne (obviously Steven Hawking as well). Guth's "The Inflationary Universe" is a fantastic read.

when neutrinos where first looked at, they were speculated to be able to be propelled near the speed of light, it was unclear, my brad.

**bigJJ** · 08-27-2005, 03:14 PM

Originally Posted by johan

Do you personaly belive we will ever break the light barrier btw? To me the most depressing thing imaginable would be if we are forever trapped by that speed limit. Stuck in a boring corner of the galaxy just able to observe the universe never explore it.

Whether we can break it or not, who knows... But even Einstein knew that there was a way around the whole problem. The Einstein-Rosen bridge showed that rather than traversing the intervening space (traveling from point A to B), we warp space so much that A and B are located in the same place. A wormhole. If possible, it seems a much more efficient mode of transportation.

The trick, of course, is making sure that traversing intense gravitational tides doesn't turn us into spagetti

As for matter or information actually traveling faster than light, Quantum Mechanics has shown us that there are very peculiar aspects to our universe (including possibly, not being the only universe, but one of many in a muli-verse). So if it turns out that it's possible, it really wouldn't surprise me much.

**samoth** · 08-29-2005, 01:31 AM

Originally Posted by johan

I think this is the "dumbed" down version. Atleast I hope so cause it would be wierd if 2 mathematics release a theory without atleast mathematic proof

What do you think of the points raised in the article? The explanation they give from there point of view why particle accelerators can never exceed speed of light ect? I wish I knew enough about this to be able to look at it from all sides.

have you read Florentin Smarandache "proof" that information can travel faster then the speed of light via quantum entanglement? Cant say I understand it but it seems interesting.

Do you personaly belive we will ever break the light barrier btw? To me the most depressing thing imaginable would be if we are forever trapped by that speed limit. Stuck in a boring corner of the galaxy just able to observe the universe never explore it.

I'm aware of the entanglement hypothesis with information traveling faster than c, but it does not violate SR. SR states no object with mass can travel at c in a vacuum -- many objects move faster than c every day, but it's through a reflective medium, and not in vacuo. The way of random information travelling faster than c -- entanglement -- involves being able to find the spin of an electron at any distance from us immediately by observing it's partner electron.

There's the theoretic tachyons, which have a minimum speed at c and maximum at infinity. They supposedly do not interact with matter, and get more massive as they approach c from infinity... however, SR does not prohibit travel above c; only acceleration of massive particles past c.

The whole quantum entanglement thing has nothing to do with 'our world', one can not take a classical approach to it, mixing GR and QM notwithstanding.

Wormholes are ... umm... kind of... allowed by GR (I've heard arguments all around), but they violate the weak energy condition. I believe it's been proved that a wormhole can only exist with the assistance of negative energy, and that's been shown to be impossible. There's the problem with singularities as well.

Thing is, NONE of this kind of stuff can be even theorized with out the math and showing, through manipulations of the equations, that a given mathematical solution is allowed which can be interpreted physically as what has been coined a 'wormhole' (by Wheeler I think). Most of the BH, WH and wormhole theories are from relativity, and purely mathematical. But you are also changing the topology of spacetime to create a wormhole, which is done via quantum theory, lol. Solving for G(mu)(nu) given some distribution of mass-energy won't allow one to change the topology of space.

Basically, proposing even the premis of the argument, like finding how the metric tensor determines the topology of a smooth manifold in Minkowski spacetime, takes a lot of math. Without any, it's just science fiction.