Warp speed space travel and GR:

Discussion in 'Astronomy, Exobiology, & Cosmology' started by paddoboy, Aug 19, 2015.

  1. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,225
    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-08-17/warp-speed-a-possibility-astrophysicist-says/6702034

    Warp speed space travel a possibility thanks to Einstein's theory of relativity, astrophysicist says
    Updated Mon at 3:27pm

    Media player: "Space" to play, "M" to mute, "left" and "right" to seek.




    VIDEO: Could Einstein's Theory of Relativity make 'warp speed' a possibility? (ABC News)
    PHOTO: Artist's impression of a spacecraft entering warp speed. (NASA CD-98-76634 by Les Bossinas)MAP: Australia
    Long considered a staple of science fiction, high speed space travel between galaxies — or warp speed — may actually be possible, according to astrophysicist Professor Geraint Lewis.

    Professor Lewis, from the University of Sydney, is set to deliver a talk today at the National Science Week in Sydney, and said the futuristic concept was actually part of Albert Einstein's theory of relativity.

    "If you look at the equation that Einstein gave us, it shows you can bend and warp space so you can travel at any speed you like in the universe," he said.
    :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

    Professor Geraint Lewis was a "regular" on a previous forum I was a part of and which was run by the ABC [Australian Broadcasting service] and which around a decade or so ago went defunct.
    Let me say that Professor Lewis was rather conservative in his views on many things, and so such optimistic enlightening views from him surprised me to some extent.
    There is a video at the link where he gives an interview to a couple of journalists


    "
     
    Last edited: Aug 20, 2015
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Boris2 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,094
    wouldn't say conservative but realistic. (i also participated in that forum for others here.) and i thought he hasn't changed his views when i saw this video.

    Australian Broadcasting Commission BTW.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,225
    Yep, correct with the Commission in place of Service obviously.
    Realistic, yep certainly but also just as certainly on the conservative side of realistic.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,225
    Let me add that the old now defunct ABC forum, was very fortunate in that besides the contributions of Professor Lewis, we also had a young GR theorist named Chris. Not sure where he is now, but both kept the forum on the straight and narrow so to speak.
    We also had James, the Administrator here and also our share of eccentrics, one particular who called himself Zarkov.
     
  8. danshawen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,942
    Is "negative density energy" is a variation on "exotic matter"?

    Isn't gravity supposed to be made of negative density energy or be non-conservative in terms of energy?

    Is negative density energy conserved, or to put it another way, does negative energy combined with energy violate conservation of energy? Has this guy or anyone else ever built a prototype of a perpetual motion machine using negative density energy?

    Give an example of negative energy or exotic matter anyone has ever observed; I'm not talking about dark matter or dark energy, or anything happening during or 1 billion years after the Big Bang.

    'Warp speed' relative to WHAT? Anything matter or energy moving faster than light in one direction would need to move faster than light in EVERY direction at the same time (and by that I mean, not in a straight line along their former sublight or light speed paths of propagation). Matter or energy can't propagate like that. Quantum fields can. That is fact. Blowing warp bubbles or wormholes out of a pipe faster than light in a vacuum is a fairy story.

    Another difference between knowledge and imagination is the chasm separating science and relativity from episodes of Star Trek. Why is it that so many people confuse the two? Was Star Trek really that well played? I'll grant you, it was probably more entertaining than reading about physics. Build all the flashy warp drive and nacelle props you want. It will get you nowhere as fast as you are going right now.
     
    Last edited: Aug 20, 2015
  9. OnlyMe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,914
    Sounds a lot like jibberish, Dan. I mean your post.

    Faster than light in any direction would obviously be faster than light in all directions.., just by the fact that if you could travel faster than light, relative velocities would have to be additive, in the same way that closing and parting velocities of two photons are additive and faster than the speed of an individual photon.

    Where did you came up with negative energy (just one interpretation/speculation about vacuum energy), as a variation on exotic matter, is a mystery. At least until and unless you can provide a coherent source....

    And then, "Isn't gravity supposed to be made of negative density energy...", another case of where did to pull that one from? You want to speculate wildly about the fundamental source or origin of gravitation.., at least start with a source you can run with.., with some kind of logic.
     
  10. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,225

    Wow!!, I mean really, wow!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    I have just given my glasses a clean Dan, as I thought I was reading another of wellwishers pseudoscience rubbish.
    I don't really know where to start with such nonsense.
    Let me say that while the laws of physics and GR allow for spacetime warping and curvature, that a perception of FTL travel could be realized.
    Time travel of course is also allowed for, in fact the equations of GR spell out the method.
    You of course know this already, but you of course would rather wear your "maverick" coat and fabricate nonsense in the hope to impress.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    As I have said, having participated in a forum with Professor Lewis, I found him somewhat conservative in his speculation, as opposed to say Michio Kaku, Kip Thorne, or Sean Carroll.
    I don't mean that as a criticism of Professor Lewis, he was obviously a great addition to the old forum we were apart of and his contributions were exceptional, and realistic.
    These speculative scenarios are of course going to be difficult in the extreme to achieve, but while they remain possible, and while we remain viable and non extinct, they are achievable.
     
  11. danshawen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,942
    This idea came from the article referenced from the original post (I am mocking it).

    The dynamics of bound energy that is matter however is my idea and simply works the way I said (and I can't help it if it sounds like gibberish). It is an extension of de Sitter's formulation of bound energy. Even though energy is bound in the stationary quantum field by means of entanglement into particles (or standing waves if you prefer) at the BOUNDARIES, in-between traversal of those boundaries it is simply energy propagating. If you relativistically add the external propagation vector of the particle to the internal one, the rule is that it still may not exceed the speed of light in a vacuum. As a result, the vector of the bound energy that is in the direction of motion simply Doppler shifts as it travels, and it carries that additional energy into all of the other directions the bound energy propagates within the particle and the quantum field. If a particle is moving at a speed that is a fraction below c in a particular direction, the easiest way to add more energy to the motion is to accelerate it in another direction. This process may continue for as many directions as are possible, which for all intents and purposes, is infinite. Or you can push it in the same direction; same result.

    This is a mechanism by which you may pump as much kinetic energy into the motion of matter as you wish without unraveling it. It is also one formulation of the reason it is impossible to push energy or matter FTL in any direction. Any energy added gets distributed into different directions FTL inside the bound energy. Outside, it goes no faster. It can't because it's a physical impossibility for it to do so.
     
    Last edited: Aug 20, 2015
  12. danshawen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,942
    GR allows for spacetime warping and curvature, check. Accepted theory to the first approximation.

    FTL travel could be realized. NO. Matter or energy cannot propagate faster than light. Entanglement can, but no energy or matter propagates in order to accomplish that.

    Time travel could be realized. Sure, but only to the future; never the past. It would violate conservation of energy worse than the Big Bang in its first conception did. Please don't roll out the giant rotating toroidal black holes. Anything that goes into one of those never comes out, whether it has traveled in time or not, so that is the kind of science included in one of the chapters of 'black holes for idiots'.

    Professor Geraint Lewis is fabricating fiction for science. His credentials aren't worth the paper and ink used in their forgery.

    There are a lot of symmetries in physics. Conservation of energy is the first and most important one. Without that one, neither Lagrangian nor Hamiltonian dynamics makes any real sense. Have you noticed? Actual physics still uses those A LOT.

    According to what Geraint is saying, perpetual motion machines and reactionless thrust become possible. We have discussed this already. Is this what you are defending? Be specific. Give examples for the ones on my list that don't check out. If you can't, there isn't really anything to argue about, is there?

    Give it a few decades and perhaps pigs will fly through the miracle of genetic manipulation of pigeons, but Lewis' ideas never will.
     
  13. danshawen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,942
    Could you point me in the direction of one of his discussions you particularly liked? I'll see if I can find anything else about his credentials elsewhere.
     
  14. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,225
    GR and the laws of physics allow for spacetime warping...period, without any fabricated bullshit.

    Your are being intellectually dishonest. No one claims that.
    Spacetime is not confined by the speed of light, therefor any ship within an Alcubierre warp drive spacetime bubble could be perceived to move FTL
    Reputable orginizations with reputable people are looking at that.
    Difficult to achieve, still rather speculative, but not impossible.
    I would of course rather go with the knowledge and ideas of someone more reputable than yourself.
    https://plus.maths.org/content/time-travel-allowed
    In brief: The laws of physics allow members of an exceedingly advanced civilisation to travel forward in time as fast as they might wish. Backward time travel is another matter; we do not know whether it is allowed by the laws of physics, and the answer is likely controlled by a set of physical laws that we do not yet understand at all well: the laws of quantum gravity. In order for humans to travel forward in time very rapidly, or backward (if allowed at all), we would need technology far far beyond anything we are capable of today.
    No Dan it is you fabricating fiction and as you did with Kip Thorne, you are once again, drooling at the mouth with fanatical vexation, while your own credentials remain questionable at best, and non existent at worst.
    Professor Lewis is simply speculating on certain scenarios within current known laws and GR, and is qualified to do so.


    Professor lewis is not saying anything that is not in the OP. Your rather foolish fabricated nonsense, seems to be just par for the course for you in recent times. eg: support for wellwisher pseudoscience now shifted, and support for the religious fanatic Eugene, also now moved.
    More intellectual dishonesty??? You know full well it is not Professor Lewis's idea....It is a speculative scenario that has been considered for more than a decade by other reputable physicists such as Thorne, Kaku and Sagan.
    It is you taking the idea foolishly beyond its obvious boundaries, and presentations, and it is you fabricating questionable situations without any qualifications.
    Dan my old friend, we have a little saying in Australia, regarding those that sit on the side line, nit picking at the real diligent people at the coal face, doing what they can to improve their own lot and the lot of society.
    It goes like this.....
    Just like the cocky on the biscuit tin, you just ain't in it. [and certainly never were nor ever will be]
    Do better.
     
    brucep likes this.
  15. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,225

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    Are you kidding yourself?
     
  16. brucep Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,098
    The chasm for you is infinite in depth since you don't have much of either. Knowledge or imagination. It's time for you to quit trolling these threads with your style of ignorant bullshit.
     
  17. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,225

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    I was particularly surprised when recently he offered Eugene [the fanatic religious nut] and wellwisher support. Both of their threads were moved to the fringes.
    I see his problem as a "white knight" charging in to defend the underdog [alternative/pseudo nuts] and/or attacking the evil dudes that show these same nuts for what they are [me in this instant]

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    I've been rather amused at his gradual demise.
     
  18. brucep Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,098
    When he first became a member he spewed his ignorant hypothesis he told us that it was he and two others who are working on the hypothesis that the Higgs boson is a source of gravity. Two others? LOL. Nice try. LOL. Ghost confirmation that the hypothesis warrants attention. LOL.
     
    danshawen likes this.
  19. danshawen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,942
    As per usual, you didn't attempt to answer a single question I asked. Either you are reading my posts or paddoboy's. I can't discern which, but at least that is something new.
     
    Last edited: Aug 21, 2015
  20. danshawen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,942
    Who is it that is moving the subject to discussion of other threads? Can't you answer a direct question?
     
  21. danshawen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,942
    Who is it that is moving the subject to discussion of other threads? Can't you answer a direct question about THIS one? As I recall, Eugene did, and not just once. You may not have liked the answers. Neither did I, but I wasn't about to cut him off because he stood to learn something from the discussion. You, on the other hand, seem to have a mind set in concrete, to go along with a range of responses so limited, I could list most of them on a single page shorter than most OPs. I actually did that once. The list hasn't gotten very much longer.
    Here is what is intellectual dishonesty.

    You say you are backing the peer review process necessary to a scientific method to the hilt, even though through the academic equivalent of apathy, or lethargy, or whatever, a hypothesis like unicorns are the reason we're not seeing any pixies is found to be on a solid footing with relativity, FTL propagation of matter or energy is possible, and so is time travel, perpetual motion machines, and reactionless thrust engines for space travel. Just because there are peer reviewed papers that claim this is the case, and without any experimental evidence? PLEEEESE…. What part of the word "honesty" is it that you don't seem to get?

    On the other hand, it does nicely explain the mindset you seem to have. It rather strongly resembles a religion, FYI, and not in a complementary fashion.
     
    Last edited: Aug 21, 2015
  22. danshawen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,942
    Unless you have missed it, there are a lot more bozos that have boarded that particular bus than just the three we started with. The internet is full of people claiming exactly the same thing now, which means my job in that respect is done. I only wanted it to be more carefully considered, because it is the alternative (a massless or massive graviton) that makes no real sense. I don't care if someone thinks they found that symmetry. No new predictions have been forthcoming about gravitation for a very long time, 1918, to be specific. It was long overdue for a reboot.
     
  23. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,225
    deleted stuff up.
     

Share This Page