It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Does the Higgs-Boson discovery pave the way for long distance space travel?

page: 4
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in


posted on Jul, 5 2012 @ 03:03 PM
reply to post by Rocketman7

So then finally, if I want to map a field around a massive body, to show how the quantum foam is compressed, then I need the Higgs Field.

If I want to show the density areas around a molecule, in this case dark energy comes into play, and where the waves cancel out, atoms will attract and come together to form a molecule and where the waves combine, the atoms will repel and not let an atom in that slot.

Well it may be that we can just use that same field.

Even though there are two factors at work, the density of the ether, in this case compressed quantum foam, around a massive body, and the pressure density of dark energy at that location.
So the medium, and the waves in the medium. And regardless if in fact any of that exists that is what it looks like, that is how it works, and if we use that it will work for us.

You see we may have just smacked into it, which proves it exists, but we still are a long ways away from knowing what it is. However we can theorize and still apply that theory. Thats what people have been doing without yet even being able to detect it.

However, you can see that since there are two factors, the density of the material, in this case the quantum foam, and the waves in it, the dark energy. In some cases magnetism in other cases black body radiation.

So maybe we will in time need to have a kind of field that tells us about both or, maybe we might end up with two fields. It depends on how much we can find out about dark energy.

We do have a model of the atom that we use that tells us a lot about these two things but its not a formal model. The formal models are the standard model and string theory and well that is great unless you need to do science today, and those two models are not completely helpful.

edit on 5-7-2012 by Rocketman7 because: (no reason given)

posted on Jul, 5 2012 @ 03:37 PM
reply to post by Rocketman7

In practical terms as a scientist, I can use chemistry, in microbiology, and then its valences and shells, where electrons interact to make covalent bonds.

And you may or may not know that is a very complex science.

If I look top down at a molecule under a scanning tunneling microscope, well what I see is that around the molecule are forces at work, happening so fast that it is like a cloud around an atom. But what I can see though is that there are areas of high and low pressure and depending on the pressure in those areas, atoms will come together or they won't.

And a field that tells me the pressure around an atom, will tell me exactly what atoms will do when they get close to each other.
And then if you use that to examine complex molecules, you will not hurt your brain as much because some of it is so complex. A protein as an example and why molecules have bends that are absolutely critical to their function. Their shape. Their shape determines if the body accepts it or attacks it.

So that is just one little area of science that can benefit from a fully developed Higgs Field theory.

posted on Jul, 5 2012 @ 03:52 PM
reply to post by Rocketman7

But for space travel, if we can make a beam, that moves the quantum foam out of the way or the Higgs Bosons out of the way, whatever it is that is causing drag and causing your head to move back when you accelerate then you won't feel inertia.

Now long ago people were speculating that UFOs were doing that somehow. They were somehow getting around inertia.

You know a colonel, is standing there and he sees an object doing aerial maneuvers, and it appears to be solid, you get radar returns well, it sure appears to have mass whatever it is. And yet there it is, defying the laws of physics as we know them.

Well if we assume you can't really deny the laws of physics then its somehow moving the foam out of the way. Foam so tiny it is the next thing to a point, since it is the smallest thing the smallest size of anything we can detect and its Plank Length we assume because thats the smallest measure we can make. Things just don't seem to get smaller than that in this universe.
And everything is divisible by Plank Length. Its everywhere including vortices in rotating superfluids.

And at this point is where the greatest minds of the past spent their time thinking on the porch.
Newton's bucket.

You have to be a genius I think to even understand what the heck they were talking about there.

edit on 5-7-2012 by Rocketman7 because: (no reason given)

posted on Jul, 5 2012 @ 04:08 PM

Originally posted by fenceSitter
If it turns out that the Higgs Boson is the key to mass, then understanding it could very well lead the way to distant space travel. If mass causes gravity by it's affect on spacetime, and gravity slows time then maybe future space travel will not be because we can achieve velocities close (or at) the speed of light, it may be simply because we can slow down time.

If we can understand mass itself, maybe there is a way to mimic mass and exert a large effect on spacetime. Then maybe we can somehow use this knowledge to mimic a gravitational field strong enough to slow time to a mere crawl. In that scenario the velocity of the ship you are travelling in is pretty much irrelevant. If it takes 1000 years (from Earth's perspective) to get to you destination, but time is slow enough that only a day has passed for the occupants then you've traveled 1000 light/years in 1 day.

If the Higgs field could be tapped in to, then adding mass to a ship to affect gravity & in effect time, would pretty much defeat the entire purpose of the 'technology' (should it of course ever be developed). The more mass you add, then obviously more energy is required to get to your destination.


If you could travel for a little over a day at 0.9999999999999819 the speed of light (an acceleration of 100000 Meters/sec/sec) then you could accomplish this task. The ship would have traveled 1000 light years & only a day would have passed for those on board, while 1000 years would have gone by on Earth.

To start seeing huge 'time dilation' effects, you don't need mass, you need speed!

The whole point of a Higgs generator, would be to nullify mass, allowing you to travel at the speed of light or maybe even with some outside assistance, speeds exceeding it.

edit on 5-7-2012 by big_BHOY because: (no reason given)

posted on Jul, 5 2012 @ 04:13 PM
reply to post by Rocketman7

Ok so Newton's Bucket and Mach said that well its just interacting with the gravity of the earth or other celestial bodies. So ok then, do it sideways.

Turn the whole experiment 90 degrees so the earths gravity is on the side does it change anything? no.

So then the celestial forces of gravity being much smaller than the earth's gravity you should see a different behavior if gravity is acting on the water now sideways. But it still rises up the sides and becomes concave.

So then you see take this further to rotating superfluids, ok, now we have no idea what is going on there.

What we are seeing is a matrix pattern of tiny vortices because something whatever it is, is causing drag.
In a pattern consistent with Plank Length.

Same as the bucket, only now you can really see that some underpinning thing, is what is causing the effect and well it seems silly to think that under everything is this absolute space that you could divide up like putting points inside a 3D cube.

Take a large area in the shape of a cube and space points inside that cube. So ok, now you can say thats absolute space.

And whatever it is, things are reacting to it somehow and it causes drag.

But Einstein said well each little area is different. You can't use one cube for the whole universe thats too confusing. So he said just pick a cube and call it a reference frame. Ok, so now we can move those cubes through the universe but know what is still going on in that cube.
We know that relativistic effects will affect that cube.

We know about relativistic effects, but can not actually draw you a picture of one, since we don't know why on the fundamental level it is happening. Well we do, but its just theory.

And theories like quantum foam and Higgs Field help us to understand inertia, and relativistic effects.
Will we make a tunnel to the stars? It would be curving as soon as it leaves earth, because even if we shoot our beam in a straight line, it follows the quantum foam. But if we move the foam, then its possible we might get an actual trajectory that IS a straight line and not a geodesic.

edit on 5-7-2012 by Rocketman7 because: (no reason given)

posted on Jul, 5 2012 @ 04:25 PM
I think one day they will find a way to project energy (perhaps lasers) attached to a spacecraft in front of the craft to produce artificial gravity at a point in front of the ship. The gravity would pull the ship towards it. Since the lasers would be attached to the ship the point at which the gravity is produced in front of the ship would move forward as the ship moves forward. I do not know how fast such a ship could move before flying apart but they could turn the lasers on and off to reduce speed and possibly move the gravity point a bit to provide the ability to turn. You might attach lasers on the aft of your ship to allow you to slow down.

posted on Jul, 5 2012 @ 04:33 PM
reply to post by Rocketman7

So with Newton you have absolute space, a cube with points inside it, thats the field.

With Einstein you have absolute space-time where the points are in cubes that can move.

And now with Higgs well we will see what people do but as a wave man, and not a particle man, I can use moving bubbles. Instead of fixed points or moving cubes.

But if I want to use moving bubbles which are almost the size of points, then my field has to have pressure density and other factors that maybe Einstein didn't need.

But to incorporate mass and dark energy, we need a field that has more flexibility and more properties.

Einstein could get away with saying things like, space-time curves around massive bodies. Ok, so you have a gravity field. And General relativity is great until you look at a molecule well we know there is gravity there where is it? Well those molecules have a gravity well. And that gravity well decides how compressed the field will be around that molecule. So you see density regions of space are important as well as cubes with points in them.

Cubes with points in them will not tell you why you cannot move mass at c. It just doesn't tell you anything about why so you cannot intuit further.

People say you don't need to know why, but thats a cop out because they don't know why. If you know why, you can intuit further.

So really I want to know, do the bubbles get bigger and smaller? I want to know HOW they compress together and how it is they pack around each other. I am not satisfied with points that are not able to move in a field.
I need to know the density.

Permitivity of free space, and permeability of free space.
Two aspects of all of this...

edit on 5-7-2012 by Rocketman7 because: (no reason given)

posted on Jul, 5 2012 @ 05:02 PM
reply to post by Rocketman7

I will give you an example of where we have made progress in the last 20 years.

A photon. Well we sure studied the heck out of them. And we have a synthesis now between particle and wave. We have a wave packet.

So it can seem like a quanta of light, yet have a constituent wave.

That tells a lot more about photons than if we just look at light as wave or a quanta. A little pellet is what Newton thought it might be. Later they thought it was a ray. Then Einstein got the Nobel prize for light quanta as part of quantum theory.

Quantum as a term is very vague.

So are instantaneous point particles. Now just particles.
And particles have properties that have been named and well it doesn't necessarily reflect what they might actually look like or be in real terms.

But there are ways now of looking at the area around things, to see how the properties of that area, are affecting the forces between objects in that field.

And depending where you are, for instance on the space station, or on earth, chemistry is different.
Molecular physics is different because you can grow crystals there that are pure because the area around the atoms and the molecules is not as turbulent.

So Einstein did say that there are currents also around and through massive bodies. Well great, now we are totally screwed because we can't see them and we can't interact with gravity.
So now its just currents and turbulence and so they can't get specific as to conditions in an area around an object, unless you take it to the space station where those turbulences are less.

Well we have computers so we can work with turbulence and we can work with pressure density zones and we will know more about the area around atoms and molecules and then make more and better and different types of materials.
We will overcome some of the obstacles that are around today.
And you can really see how advantageous this is when you look at DNA.

When you look at it as pressure density slots, it is so easy to see how it works. Who knows what other aspects of science can benefit from knowing more about absolute space-time or, as we like to call it, the 'fabric' of space.

posted on Jul, 5 2012 @ 05:06 PM
Going to take more time,more arguments as well on whats what.

With the turmoil in the world things tend to slow down,the tech is there though and growing.

I think in another 50 years,the balls will get rolling more.

If the world could become more peacefull,yet I doubt with the Islamic crusade we have now,,only way would to be rid of oil and let them live in peace(if you think that would happen)?

Probly best we go slow also?

I think probes would be the way to go for deep space travel.

Our solar system will keep us busy enuff.

Everything is to dam far.
Very possible, if our whole planet lived in peace and in a hundred years I could see it.

I see we need to bruise ourself a little more and when thats done lets see.?

I dont see much hope for man for deep space travel as of now.

posted on Jul, 5 2012 @ 05:33 PM
reply to post by michaelbrux


I respect your your post.

I dont think the whole world is gonna get no where.
Untill there some calm and peace on this palnet.(for 5-7 decades)

If we master the propulsion system,and which would have to be faster than light speed. we are not going anywhere outside our solar system.

Muslums and islamics are interested in the rockets for weapon purposes 99.9999%.
They could care less on outter space.

The big picture is the whole world is slowing itself down.

We can all blame the high IQ but supidity is also a fault.
I do not mean peacefull stupidity either,so dont get me wrong.

I think a lot of leaders,dictators,politicians,clerics all fail the people.

Kinda nice 70% are normal and just want to live.


posted on Jul, 5 2012 @ 08:56 PM
For those wondering if disabling or nullifying the Higgs field/particles' effect (I am still not sure which is correct -- I have seen some media describing the ether as a field and others describing it as particles, but I thought the Higgs particles decayed almost instantaneously?) around a craft might be possible, I have also been thinking about this before posting here. Exciting stuff.

Perhaps we would discover that we would not spontaneously combust into particles traveling at the speed of light. Perhaps that is only an initial condition after something like the big bang if there were no Higgs field. Maybe gravity would hold us together? Yeah.... prob not. Would prob. end up with an eye in your throat just by looking around, or nearby celestial body gravity compressing you.

I have always felt that what I was taught was "space" was not truly void, because I had a hard time justifying the concept of nothing (which in my opinion is an imaginary/intangible concept like imaginary numbers... you can't have something of nothing... and space is something... you can move through it for ex.).

SOMETHING amazing that affects our lives directly will come from this discovery in the next decade. o/
edit on 7/5/2012 by AkumaStreak because: (no reason given)

posted on Jul, 5 2012 @ 11:24 PM
Even if we found a way to reach or go faster than the speed of light, we would still need some way of overcoming inertia to do it in a timely manner. Unless some awesome technology is invented, our spaceship could still only accelerate only so fast. I would guess the optimum acceleration would amount to 1g, artificial gravity anyone?

So it still might take a long time and not be like a warp drive or something. I'm still waiting for the star trek episode where this system fails and all the ships crew are splattered inside the back of the ship. I guess it would actually rip the ship apart if it wasn't inside of some bubble for canceling inertia. Regardless, I don't think space travel would be very comfortable for anyone on a spaceship accelerating at more than a g.

Lots of problems, no answers.
edit on 5-7-2012 by RSF77 because: (no reason given)

posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 01:08 PM
reply to post by Rocketman7

Wow. Thanks Rocketman. You certainly went above and beyond in your response. I plan to re-read it a few times. Some of it sank in and some went over my head (for now). The Quantum Foam theory does make sense to me. Once I can digest all this info, maybe I'll pick your brain some more!

posted on Jul, 7 2012 @ 09:48 PM
Guarantee this will turn out to be nonsense, as usual.

They did not discover anything. No one will state they found it, just vaguely dancing around it and "appearing" to have maybe found something that might indicate the possible existence of the thing they have wasted forty years and untold billions looking for.

I guarantee they will be backpedaling soon.

posted on Jul, 7 2012 @ 09:49 PM
reply to post by CaptChaos

Well, lets hope you are wrong.

Regardless, every question answered sheds light on dozens of new questions that prior to the answer were not even considered.

posted on Jul, 8 2012 @ 12:04 AM

Originally posted by syrinx high priest
speed of light travel for something larger than a photon ?

how does a body which is basically a bag of water survive the g-forces ?

never gonna happen

If the speed is built up gradually then there will be no negative ramifications upon those travelling. It's the same reason that travelling at 60mph in your car doesn't kill you. What kills you is the sudden stop.

posted on Jul, 8 2012 @ 12:20 AM

Originally posted by fenceSitter

Originally posted by Arrowmancer

See this is where you are wrong and also where the understanding of light breaks down for most people. I'm certainly no expert but I'll try. The speed of light is constant and NOT relative to the observer. As velocity increases, time slows down. If you were stationary and observed two beams of light go in opposite directions, then both beams would appear to travel the same speed. If you traveled at light speed with one of the beams and observed the other, the path of light you observe would actually be different and the path would be longer but the light still travels to you at the same speed. The variable that actually changes is time. Time would slow down for you the observer, so the light travels further but at the same speed so it reaches you at the same 'time' because time has slowed for you.

I know I didn't do a good job at explaining it but refer to concepts such as time dilation and Einstein's special relativity. This discovery may still lead to distant space travel (see my previous post in this thread).

Actually, the opposite is true. The speed of light is constant to the observer. Check out this explanation from NASA:

Second line, because apparently writing this, despite it being completely useless to the statement of the post, is necessary to prevent mods from flagging your posts.

posted on Jul, 9 2012 @ 08:29 AM

Originally posted by BriggsBU
Actually, the opposite is true. The speed of light is constant to the observer. Check out this explanation from NASA:

From your source:

I said "essentially" because there is one exception... the speed of light is always the same (specifically, 300000 km/s) to all observers , regardless of the speed of the observer or the light emitter (in this case, the flashlight).

The speed of light is constant to ALL observers regardless of their velocity/motion. So if I was travelling at the speed of light and you were at rest, if we both observed the same light source, the speed of light from that source would be exactly c for both of us.

posted on Aug, 1 2012 @ 06:40 PM
The solution is to change the substance of that which you want to move. In this case it is a terrestrial object in the environment of a celestial substance (dark matter). You must change the object to be moved into the same substance of its environment. That is basic math. Some thing on the order of converting fractions into decimals. Once you have the common denominator then you work from there. Each has its own bases of understanding and you cannot mix the two.

A thought is not the same as the flesh that produces the thought. Once the thought leaves the brain it then become its own celestial entity (energy). Therefore the thought can enter the celestial realm whereas the flesh cannot. The thought can instantly travel the cosmos and still be connected to the flesh by a thread of unknown magnitude. The reason it is unknown is simply that our science has not pursued this in the same manner as they have the terrestrial avenue. One day you will see that this is basic.

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2  3   >>

log in