It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

How to travel faser than light.

page: 2
7
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 16 2009 @ 04:37 PM
link   
Thank you. I'm still altering a bit. So far I've decided the best way is to create a slowly moving bubble of relativity, and then inside create a fast moving area of relativity, and then keep the ship in normal earth-like relativity. This would enable the faster relativity to have a simple engine push a few miles per hour equate to pushing the craft many times the speed of light.




posted on Jun, 16 2009 @ 04:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gorman91
Imagine you create a cylinder, maybe twice as high as its radius, and then place within it a smaller version of the cylinder, and then charge these two to be very very negative. What material? I don;t know. Something that holds lots and lots of electrons, Probably a metal that can run electrons through it at enormous rates, or a nonmetal that can hold lots of electrons and make a heavy duty negative charge. This is a thought experiment, so just imagine that this material is producible (as it probably will be in a few years with the rate of technological advancements these years. but anyway, back to the cylinder. Fill the space between them with negative particles (anti protons maybe, or something with significant mass). We want something that can obey the ideal gas laws, but also be compacted easily, so anti-hydrogen seems ideal for usage. Now, e have a gas that is in a confined space, but not allowed to touch the cylinders due to electronic charge.

Okay...though you could just use, you know, negatively charged ionic gas. So you have a ring of negatively charged gas surrounded by negatively charged cylinders.


Originally posted by Gorman91
Now what do we do? We make a superfluid and freeze them to the point that they super condense into a "hollow" black hole (with the inner cylinder being the hollow part).

What?! What the hell? How did you do this? Wizardry! Witchcraft! Nothing else makes sense because this doesn't.



posted on Jun, 16 2009 @ 05:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Johnmike
 


When you freeze something, volume decreases. Freeze it far enough, and it becomes an almost volume-less superfluid. This is basic chemistry. Volume is proportional to temperature. This is why absolute 0 is unreachable, because there would be no volume, but then it wouldn't exist. So freeze it as far as humanly possible, and it has so much mass in such small volume that you get a black hole. Basic physics and chemistry.

So, it makes perfect sense. If you didn't know this, I'm sorry for confusing you.

Also antimatter is easier to destroy then with ionic gas, mainly because it can be just anti protons and you have negative charge, as opposed to pumping lots of electricity through it. That's harder. So something that is negatively charged naturally, such as anti protons, is better.



[edit on 16-6-2009 by Gorman91]



posted on Jun, 16 2009 @ 09:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gorman91
When you freeze something, volume decreases.

This isn't always true. For example, water is most dense at about 4 degrees celsius.


Originally posted by Gorman91
Freeze it far enough, and it becomes an almost volume-less superfluid.

That isn't how superfluids work.


Originally posted by Gorman91
This is basic chemistry. Volume is proportional to temperature.

The only basic chemistry here is if you're going by the ideal gas law, which 1) doesn't properly predict gasses, since it's the ideal gas law, and 2) does not apply to other states of matter. In terms of thermodynamics, you can have some thermal volume change in solids, but again 1) this depends on the material and 2) it is not possible to reach a zero volume.


Originally posted by Gorman91
This is why absolute 0 is unreachable, because there would be no volume, but then it wouldn't exist.

No, it's unreachable because then you would have no thermal energy at all, and to do that you need a way to absorb the energy with something that has even less energy. Basically you can only make something as cold as something you're cooling it with, unless you get into laser cooling. And even then it's impossible to remove every nanojoule of energy.



Originally posted by Gorman91
So freeze it as far as humanly possible, and it has so much mass in such small volume that you get a black hole. Basic physics and chemistry.

This does not happen. It isn't basic physics or basic chemistry. You can't create a black hole by supercooling something, otherwise every time we (ex. solid state physicists) make a superfluid or supersolid that's cooler than the next, we'd be at risk for making a black hole -- and that just isn't the case. Sorry to disappoint you, but you need another source of singularities.



Originally posted by Gorman91
So, it makes perfect sense. If you didn't know this, I'm sorry for confusing you.

Sorry, it doesn't.



Originally posted by Gorman91
Also antimatter is easier to destroy then with ionic gas, mainly because it can be just anti protons and you have negative charge, as opposed to pumping lots of electricity through it. That's harder. So something that is negatively charged naturally, such as anti protons, is better.

Whatever you want to do. But it's really hard and costly to manufacture antimatter, and transporting is it near impossible. Then remember that any failure in perfect containment will make you all die, since if it touches real matter it'll explode. But I don't care since your whole premise of making black holes by supercooling things is fiction.



posted on Jun, 16 2009 @ 09:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Johnmike
 



Originally posted by Gorman91
This is why absolute 0 is unreachable, because there would be no volume, but then it wouldn't exist.




No, it's unreachable because then you would have no thermal energy at all, and to do that you need a way to absorb the energy with something that has even less energy. Basically you can only make something as cold as something you're cooling it with, unless you get into laser cooling. And even then it's impossible to remove every nanojoule of energy.


I agree, but what if we evacuate this energy into an artificial static universe and then collapse it, that would allow us to reach absolute zero would it not? I know this raises the complexity but it would solve the problem. If we can create a bridge connecting our space with another universe or at least a 3 dimensional membrane we could theoretically push all energy into there, in a way creating a micro worm hole to evacuate the energy to. This could possibly be achieve I believe by super compacting baryons into a stabilized anti-matter field, hopefully reaching Planck energy and creating a quantum tear in the spacetime foam, hopefully breaching into another universe or creating one, similar to how clashing branes could create our universe. I know this is all speculation and it is in its EARLY stages but I think there may be some potential here. I am also looking into using unknown EM oscillations to entice strings to open. BTW, are you a physicist?



posted on Jun, 16 2009 @ 09:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Gorman91
 


Great thread, I am glad you brought your idea to the community. I am currently working some new theories, although they are slow going because I am caught up in other things at the moment. I am hoping to be able to add some more insights soon.



posted on Jun, 16 2009 @ 09:24 PM
link   
Ugh.
... That's really all I have to say about this whole thread.


Thanks for debunking, Johnmike. Appreciate it



posted on Jun, 16 2009 @ 09:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Johnmike
 


Water actually begins to get smaller when it gets cold enough. I forget the graph I saw back in highschool.

Bare in mind that water only expands for a certain range.


Super fluids stop light. Stop light and you stop information because it can't go faster. You create a virtual black hole. We don't want an actual one necessarily.

I know about temperatures and the ideal gas laws. But we are only talking about gas here, not solids. We don't want the cylinders to reach that cold. And while you can't reach absolute 0, you can get very VERY close, and that's what we want, so we can make a superfluid.

Also, if something was in a vacuum and completely cut off from any light or anything else, theoretically there would be no way for light to hit the item and make it cold. Hence the necessity for a black hole. Then you use gravity waves to fool reality into making a black hole with all the properties of absolute 0 except that it has mass. Time is basically paused to our relativity, so the molecules do not move, just like with absolute 0.

Actually, yes, you are right about temperature. hence why we are ALSO using electronegativity to further compress it. After temperature has done all it can do, electronegativity does the rest. But you do risk a black hole if you don't manage a cold thing properly. They made a virtual black hole with a Bose–Einstein condensate

www.technologyreview.com...


As to antimatter, the risks are slowly being controlled. takes time, but again, such a craft would be VERY big, probably needing massive magnets.

[edit on 16-6-2009 by Gorman91]



posted on Jun, 16 2009 @ 09:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by Johnmike
 

Also, if something was in a vacuum and completely cut off from any light or anything else, theoretically there would be no way for light to hit the item and make it cold. Hence the necessity for a black hole. Then you use gravity waves to fool reality into making a black hole with all the properties of absolute 0 except that it has mass.

Actually, yes, you are right about temperature. hence why we are ALSO using electronegativity to further compress it. After temperature has done all it can do, electronegativity does the rest. But you do risk a black hole if you don't manage a cold thing properly. They made a virtual black hole with a Bose–Einstein condensate

www.technologyreview.com...


As to antimatter, the risks are slowly being controlled. takes time, but again, such a craft would be VERY big, probably needing massive magnets.


are you secretly a philosophy student trying to pass as a physicist?



posted on Jun, 16 2009 @ 09:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kaytagg
are you secretly a philosophy student trying to pass as a physicist?


I was going to respond to the post above, but that expresses everything much better.


Also, the acoustic "black hole" has nothing to do with the gravitational effects of singularities. Note that I put black hole in quotation marks. That's a hint!



posted on Jun, 16 2009 @ 09:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Kaytagg
 


What is your deal? Why are you knocking someones ideas here? If you do not like the ideas then do not respond at all? Do you care to add your input into the discussion, OTHER than your sarcastic cutdowns?


 


Reply to Gorman91:

So what do you think of my idea I stated for evacuation of thermal energy? Also it is interesting you mentioned the Bose-Einstein Condensate....www.abovetopsecret.com...

Check that out..



posted on Jun, 16 2009 @ 09:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Johnmike
 



Also, the acoustic "black hole" has nothing to do with the gravitational effects of singularities. Note that I put black hole in quotation marks. That's a hint!


In a direct sense it doesn't, but in principle it may. Anyways what do you think of what I said above?



posted on Jun, 16 2009 @ 10:10 PM
link   
reply to post by jkrog08
 


If you bridged to another universe I think that we'd be a bit more stunned at the sheer fact that you achieved that before actually using it to engineer things like this with it. I'm not sure how you'd push the energy into it either. My M-Theory is very weak, but I think that by trying to violate the Planck energy in a given region of space you're simply creating a black hole, any kind of tunnel to another universe is well beyond practicality, though interesting to think about. I'd suggest testing the practicality of this idea to first create any kind of singularity at all, and then move on to whether or not it can create states of matter very close or equal to absolute zero. Otherwise, as you said, it's ridiculously speculative.

I'm a physics student at the moment but I see myself going into something closer to molecular biophysics than particle physics as of now. Why, are you?



posted on Jun, 16 2009 @ 10:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Johnmike
 


I am majoring in cosmology, although I have a strong interest in applied physics.



posted on Jun, 16 2009 @ 10:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by jkrog08
reply to post by Kaytagg
 


What is your deal? Why are you knocking someones ideas here? If you do not like the ideas then do not respond at all? Do you care to add your input into the discussion, OTHER than your sarcastic cutdowns?


 



Having the idea is fine, it's just that it's full of flaws. Flaws that most people with a BS in physics would immediately identify. Not only that, but theories have to have some kind of mathematical framework in which they are described. Simply using analogies and pop-science references isn't good enough.

So the problem with the idea is none. Which is why I think he's a philosopher more than a scientists.

The problem with the theory is everything. It's not even a theory, let alone a good one. On top of that, it's riddled with basic flaws in physics.

Sorry if that sounds harsh. I still love the OP and the rest of the people contributing to the thread though



posted on Jun, 16 2009 @ 11:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by ahnggk
 


That is for the small. For the large, the wave of probability is pretty much obvious. You would need an external force, or a God, to alter the wave probability of all the matter of the universe to make it look like a vacuum and not through a filled field.


Then all you need to do is to learn how to roll a dice so it always land on six or whatever number you like!



posted on Jun, 17 2009 @ 01:50 PM
link   
reply to post by All of you
 




Yes, the acoustic black hole is what I was looking into more. There's no reason you need to necessarily create an actual black hole, when you could create a virtual one for matter and have the same results with less energy and money needs. The fact remains that some super fluids stop light. If you stop light, you CANNOT have information travel faster than that light to identify something exists. This, in practice, may have something to do with cutting into another universe jkrog08. After all, if information cannot reach an item, how can it exist? it is in a bubble universe created within this universe, to some extent. That's what some philosophers/physicists might call it. I simply identify it as a hollow black hole(created by smaller hollow black holes). A 3 dimensional space cut off entirely from the outside universe. That's what I want to create. Because when that is created, all you need is some of the bubble accelerated, and some kept at Earth-like relativity. The part that is accelerated can have something that creates a forward vector in it and then the craft with people in it will be in the normal relativity region. The vector at, lets say, 500 MPH in the accelerated region will actually be applied as many times that for the Earth region. If we can figure out how to accelerate this region enough, than the craft CAN go faster than light to our relativity. How is it possible that information can reach the craft to tell it to go 3x10^8 m/s if information cannot reach it to identify the craft's actual speed, location, and dimensions? And anyway, it isn't actually going that speed. it's merely a bubble where space is going slower, and within a bubble where space is going faster.

What I described as the means to construct such a device is perfectly within the laws of physics. You've yet to show me how it could not work. I want feed back, not put downs.


[edit on 17-6-2009 by Gorman91]



posted on Jun, 17 2009 @ 02:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Gorman91
 



How is it possible that information can reach the craft to tell it to go 3x10^8 m/s if information cannot reach it to identify the craft's actual speed?


I have some issues with the whole 'information' part of quantum mechanics. I understand the concept but I think it is being described by our current scientists poorly. The way I see it is best relayed in the following example; For the causality issue, I believe it is possible that it has nothing to do with information transfer per say, but rather is an intrinsic property of the vacuum and its interaction with mass. I guess in a way it could be called information transfer but IMO that really is not what it is. It is just a cause-effect relationship between mass and the vacuum.

[edit on 6/17/2009 by jkrog08]



posted on Jun, 17 2009 @ 02:09 PM
link   
reply to post by jkrog08
 


Oh yes, I kind of agree. Information transfer is confusing to some extent. I use that term to stand for the action-reaction of mass to the rest of the universe. For example, how light bounces off something. The information transfer is that there is a physical object that light has to hit and bounce off of. But erase the information that this item is there, and light might theoretically just quantum tunnel through it.

Having to do in a conversation I just saw in the dark matter warp ship discussion, you wouldn't need a navigation system. Nothing could hit you because you don't exist anymore. All things in your way would just allow tunneling , with the most amount of damage to, lets say a planet, being maybe a small Earthquake.... hopefully.



posted on Jun, 17 2009 @ 03:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gorman91
Yes, the acoustic black hole is what I was looking into more. There's no reason you need to necessarily create an actual black hole, when you could create a virtual one for matter and have the same results with less energy and money needs. The fact remains that some super fluids stop light. If you stop light, you CANNOT have information travel faster than that light to identify something exists.

1) Once again, as if you didn't read before, these acoustic "black holes" don't work with light. Though maybe if you sped it up to the speed of light in the superfluid you might get some weird effects, it wouldn't work in the same way since light doesn't need the material to propagate.

2) No one said that you can't have "information" faster than light. And "information" is just an abstract concept, no one said that anything has to be "verified" for it to exert force on other objects.

3) You're talking about the speed of light. If what you were saying were true, encasing something in an object with a high refractive index will make it react slower to gravitational and electromagnetic forces than an object outside of one, and this isn't true. You're working with things like gravitons which are hypothetical force carriers, but you're assuming that they follow the same behavior of light in a medium and this is just completely false. Theoretically it is impossible (outside of tachyons and related theoretical particles which may not exist) for a force carrier to move faster than the speed of light in a vacuum, but no one said anything about the speed of light in any sort of medium, including one with a high refractive index or a motion that doesn't let light escape.


You really are working with philosophy, not science. I mean, it's better than a lot of stuff I've seen people write, but it still doesn't hold. It might be a good idea to experiment with things and ideas, but make sure you verify what you do at every step. You kind of took one idea and ran with it, making countless assumptions along the way. One step at a time is all you need.



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join