It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

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

# Near-Light-Speed Starships May Not Fly

page: 6
12
share:

posted on Jun, 30 2013 @ 07:23 PM

Originally posted by mbkennel

Originally posted by Bedlam

Originally posted by mbkennel

In vacuum, no idea.

Space itself doesn't have permittivity and permeability, in proper theoretical units they are "1". and B=H and E=D.

epsilon0 and mu0 (can't do the symbols on a phone) would like a word with you

They and their equally dubious multiples-of-pi fellow-travellers have been renamed 1.

en.wikipedia.org...

Not according to IUPAC. On the phone so I can't cut-n-paste links, but IUPAC and 'vacuum permeability' and 'vacuum permittivity' in a search engine aren't close to unity

eta: The speed of light neither being infinite or zero means these have values that aren't trivial. Sure you can normalize to these being "1", that's how you get relative permeability. Doesn't make it go away, just means you changed the definition of other units to get it to come out that way.
edit on 30-6-2013 by Bedlam because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 30 2013 @ 07:28 PM

There's no physics there, there is just two different systems of commonly use electromagnetic units, and in the SI system e0 and mu0 have arbitrary numbers and in cgs-Gaussian (used in theory) they don't. in SI c^2 = 1/(e0*u0)

It's a conversion factor that depends on which equations you want to look simple. If you want Coulomb's law to have no funky stuff you get cgs-Gaussian. Other choices, like SI connect you to regular ohms and volts instead of funny things and statvolts but are less symmetrical theoretically.

Back the the real issue at hand, engineerable modifcation of mu0 & e0 thereof.....
edit on 30-6-2013 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)

edit on 30-6-2013 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 30 2013 @ 07:35 PM

Your comment upthread was that e and u were unity in free space (no) and that it was dependent on molecule size and did not occur in vacuum, when it did occur in a material it was dependent on an interaction with the medium which was dependent on a relation between the wavelength and the medium's molecular size. For glass, that's true, and gives rise to dispersion. For vacuum, it still has permeability and permittivity and no dispersion at all, until you get high enough energies to produce matter.

posted on Jun, 30 2013 @ 07:37 PM

Right, they based the other units off of an arbitrary value of 1 for u and e.

Electric and magnetic fields still don't propagate instantly, there's a rate and that's set by e and u, define them as unity if you choose.
edit on 30-6-2013 by Bedlam because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 30 2013 @ 08:03 PM

Originally posted by mbkennel

Back the the real issue at hand, engineerable modifcation of mu0 & e0 thereof..
.

Ah, HOW do they do it. Hell, I'm just an engineer. You'd want one of the eggheads for that.

I mean, I can hardly SPELL stress-energy tensor, much less do Hamiltonians. I think I saw a twistor once.

posted on Jun, 30 2013 @ 08:39 PM
Transferring the Brownian motion into information seems the only logical solution to the heating problem outlined in this discussion. See this resource: www.technologyreview.com...

Converting the heating into information essentially.

posted on Jun, 30 2013 @ 10:24 PM

Do you know if the polarizable-vacuum model of general relativity is viable? If so, wouldn't it provide an avenue for what bedlam is describing?

quantum.site.nfoservers.com... - Polarizable Vacuum and the Schwarzschild Solution: JG Depp
arxiv.org... - Polarizable-Vacuum (PV) representation of general relativity: Puthoff
vixra.org... - General Relativity and the Polarizable Vacuum: TJ Desiato
cds.cern.ch... - The Electromagnetic Zero-Point Field and the Flat Polarizable Vacuum Representation: Desiato; Storti

posted on Jul, 1 2013 @ 02:21 AM

I just looked at the Puthoff paper only as it seemed to be the most relevant.

It didn't say that it was a total equivalence to GR, maybe OK in the first order mostly linear approximation used to estimate many GR effects. All departure from classical physics in Euclidean space appears to be parameterized by a single scalar field K, which is the multiplicative alteration to e0 and u0.

Real GR is of course fully nonlinear. I don't think that GR's dynamics can be simplified in general down to a single scalar from the coupled diffeq's that they are, all those GR simulationists would be jumping for joy if you could. Gut feeling is that it is a match at low order but not the real thing. (Re-read it, the point is addressed in the footnotes, the approach is equivalent to something called Einstein-Yilmaz, which is itself controversial and not accepted)

If you think about it it is making gravitational lensing work mathematically like well, actual glass lenses because lenses work by changing the index of refraction and thus otherwise 'straight lines' of EM propagation curve.

If it reproduces GR's physical effects then you still have the same problem, you change metric/pseudo-vacuum-polarization something with the stress-energy tensor and you need astrophysical level masses & energies to do stuff. You need some physical coupling enormously stronger than what we know, i.e. new physics and not a reformulation of old physics.

Now, if you somehow DID have magic new warp drive physics, this approach might be a pretty good 'engineering' technique to figure out as a first guess what the consequences might be since the higher order effects would still be small.

edit on 1-7-2013 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)

edit on 1-7-2013 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)

edit on 1-7-2013 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)

edit on 1-7-2013 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)

edit on 1-7-2013 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)

posted on Jul, 1 2013 @ 02:31 PM

Originally posted by Bedlam
For vacuum, it still has permeability and permittivity and no dispersion at all, until you get high enough energies to produce matter.

Can you further touch upon how matter is made from high energies? Are you talking about made from photons/radiation? And what kind of matter does it become?

posted on Jul, 2 2013 @ 12:06 AM

So, even if this approach was workable, it would face the same hurdles in making a warp drive as normal GR? Back to square one...

posted on Jul, 2 2013 @ 12:28 AM

Originally posted by Tajlakz

So, even if this approach was workable, it would face the same hurdles in making a warp drive as normal GR? Back to square one...

Well, of course, if it reduces to GR in lower powers of curvature parameter (i.e. everywhere outside a black hole's neighborhood), then you are where we are. For warp drive there has to be something somehow overlooked which is a few trillion, or maybe trillion trillion trillion times more powerful than we thought it was but doesn't have any observable effect in mainstream experimentation.

new topics

top topics

12