The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: Is superluminal travel without relativistic effects possible?  (Read 2638 times)

Offline Space Flow

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 400
  • Thanked: 31 times
    • View Profile
You are probably right and my confusion probably stems from my definition of observer.
I will have to review my studies I think. Back to school for me...
I would like to get off this shaky ground my wandering thoughts have taken me to.
Thanks for staying with me for so long.
« Last Edit: 01/02/2016 04:29:21 by Space Flow »
 

Offline Colin2B

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1921
  • Thanked: 125 times
    • View Profile
I'll try to find some papers I found helpful
 

Offline Space Flow

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 400
  • Thanked: 31 times
    • View Profile
Thanks.
Because I just came across another similar post that has me asking again.
Also especially I can do nothing but think about this at the moment. You see your last explanation isn't making sense to me either. Earth has to "see you" complete your million light year journey in a bit over 1 million years and not a bit over 2 million, otherwise they would not see you travelling at nearly light speed. That is what the Lorenz transformation says.
If they were to watch you for over 2 million years then they would only see you traveling at half light speed and the flip side of that would be a totally different Gamma that wouldn't see you get anywhere near your destination before you died.
Needless to say I'm definitely still confused. The math says one thing, analysis reveals another. I just can't see where I'm derailing.
I suggest you check my math if you get a chance.
 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3164
  • Thanked: 46 times
    • View Profile
No such thing has superluminal travel
 

Offline Space Flow

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 400
  • Thanked: 31 times
    • View Profile
No such thing has superluminal travel
How can we be sure?
 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3164
  • Thanked: 46 times
    • View Profile
No such thing has superluminal travel
How can we be sure?

I am sure not because it does or not exist, I am sure because it will never be allowed to exist.

 

Offline Space Flow

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 400
  • Thanked: 31 times
    • View Profile
I am sure not because it does or not exist, I am sure because it will never be allowed to exist.
What's this?
You a conspiracy theorist now?
 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3164
  • Thanked: 46 times
    • View Profile
I am sure not because it does or not exist, I am sure because it will never be allowed to exist.
What's this?
You a conspiracy theorist now?

It just seems odd that most forums defend theories as if definitive facts, as if the accepted theories are not aloud to be questioned, set in stone as such.

 

Offline Space Flow

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 400
  • Thanked: 31 times
    • View Profile
It just seems odd that most forums defend theories as if definitive facts, as if the accepted theories are not aloud to be questioned, set in stone as such.
Thebox, you have to understand that we on these forums are all amateur theorists to one degree or another. Most of us have a love for science and are trying to gain a better understanding than our for whatever reason inadequate education provided us with. Regular taught in schools science has developed through an ever changing understanding to where it is now. Although individual names stand out in a study of the evolution of science, the directions it takes in approaching the truth of anything, is driven by humanity. It has more to do with discussions over a coffee or a beer than the laboratory.
For this to work there has to be a basic accepted system of mutual understanding of the basic conventions. Just for clear communication, the participants have to be using the same language with the same grammatical rules. This is especially true with the language of mathematics.
If anyone is to present a new or in any way novel idea, they can't be doing it by expecting everyone to learn new definitions for an established language.
Mathematics is structured enough that it can adequately describe multiple dimensions with different laws of nature to this one. I'm sure that in there exists the right form to clearly display what is in your imagination.
For all I know you could be the modern day Einstein. But if no one can understand you, your talents if they exist, will never be available to the world.
I strongly recommend you do some math refresher courses. There are a number of MOOKs available.
Then when you can present your revolutionary or not ideas, at least the rest of us can understand what you are trying to say.
Without having to learn your version of maths, and we can join into more positive conversation.
 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3164
  • Thanked: 46 times
    • View Profile
It just seems odd that most forums defend theories as if definitive facts, as if the accepted theories are not aloud to be questioned, set in stone as such.
Thebox, you have to understand that we on these forums are all amateur theorists to one degree or another. Most of us have a love for science and are trying to gain a better understanding than our for whatever reason inadequate education provided us with. Regular taught in schools science has developed through an ever changing understanding to where it is now. Although individual names stand out in a study of the evolution of science, the directions it takes in approaching the truth of anything, is driven by humanity. It has more to do with discussions over a coffee or a beer than the laboratory.
For this to work there has to be a basic accepted system of mutual understanding of the basic conventions. Just for clear communication, the participants have to be using the same language with the same grammatical rules. This is especially true with the language of mathematics.
If anyone is to present a new or in any way novel idea, they can't be doing it by expecting everyone to learn new definitions for an established language.
Mathematics is structured enough that it can adequately describe multiple dimensions with different laws of nature to this one. I'm sure that in there exists the right form to clearly display what is in your imagination.
For all I know you could be the modern day Einstein. But if no one can understand you, your talents if they exist, will never be available to the world.
I strongly recommend you do some math refresher courses. There are a number of MOOKs available.
Then when you can present your revolutionary or not ideas, at least the rest of us can understand what you are trying to say.
Without having to learn your version of maths, and we can join into more positive conversation.

I use the present symbols, I put the symbols into sentences, I do not understand what is hard to understand about your own symbols.

 

Offline Space Flow

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 400
  • Thanked: 31 times
    • View Profile
I use the present symbols, I put the symbols into sentences, I do not understand what is hard to understand about your own symbols.
There is more to communication than using the same symbols. Just like every other language, math has grammar. There is a way to use it that is understood. Using the same symbols in ways that do not make grammatical sense or attaching definitions to them that are contrary to what your peers use, just does not lead to communication. Whatever idea you are trying to communicate, gets totally lost in what is seen as drivel.
Learn the language, not just the symbols.
 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3164
  • Thanked: 46 times
    • View Profile
I use the present symbols, I put the symbols into sentences, I do not understand what is hard to understand about your own symbols.
There is more to communication than using the same symbols. Just like every other language, math has grammar. There is a way to use it that is understood. Using the same symbols in ways that do not make grammatical sense or attaching definitions to them that are contrary to what your peers use, just does not lead to communication. Whatever idea you are trying to communicate, gets totally lost in what is seen as drivel.
Learn the language, not just the symbols.

But what if there is no present maths that describes what you are trying to describe, doesn't the maths come after the idea ?

 

Offline Colin2B

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1921
  • Thanked: 125 times
    • View Profile
τ
Whatever idea you are trying to communicate, gets totally lost in what is seen as drivel.
Learn the language, not just the symbols.
Been trying to tell him this for a long time.

But what if there is no present maths that describes what you are trying to describe, doesn't the maths come after the idea ?
Then explain the idea carefully first, step by step. Don't just rush in with a set of symbols and no explanation.
Newton didn't just put a set of symbols on a board and walk away, he explained his ideas first, then explained the maths step by step.
 

Offline Space Flow

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 400
  • Thanked: 31 times
    • View Profile
But what if there is no present maths that describes what you are trying to describe, doesn't the maths come after the idea ?
If there is no present math that describes your new idea, than don't use math at all. Use English and logically stepped explanations, to make others understand what you are trying to explain. Use that medium and still be prepared for critical questioning from your peers that you are trying to convince that your new to them idea makes more sense than the existing one explaining what the subject matter is about.
We have to conceptually understand what you are proposing before we try and learn new mathematical processes.
If then someone understands and can see a way that this look at reality that you propose may have some way of fitting into the Universe and the way things work, you may try and fit it into the Universe Matrix mathematically.
But first and foremost you have to present an idea that in a logical sequence that can be related to something that is known and accepted.
It has to connect and fit in to the overall picture in a coherent way.
Unless you claim that thousands of years of Human thinking that have culminated in the current picture of the way things work, have been a total waste of time and you alone would like to delete the lot and start from scratch. If that were the case I think a straight jacket would be the only appropriate answer to your question.
 

Offline Phractality

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 523
  • Thanked: 1 times
    • View Profile
Suppose we set up a kind of light clock between Earth and Planet X. Every year, a brilliant flash of light is beamed from Earth toward Planet X. Each time a flash from Earth is observed on Planet X, a similar flash is immediately beamed back toward earth. (This has been going on for millions of years.) The space between Earth and Planet X contains 1M nodes where the flashes from opposite directions pass one another. Once every year, a stationary observer at any of those 1M nodes would observe simultaneous light flashes from both planets every half year. A moving observer can only observe the flashes simultaneously if he is on one of those 1M nodes at the right instant. Passing successive nodes, the moving observer will see the interval between the Earth flash and the Planet X flash increase and return to zero. Thus, we have created a mega-light-year meter stick against which the traveler may track his progress in Earth coordinates.

The 500,000th node is Midway between the two planets in inertial coordinates, regardless of velocity. I don't believe it is midway for an accelerating observer. So without GR, we must postulate that observations are made only during brief periods of coasting. If you accelerate for Δt and coast for Δt/c, c sufficiently large, I believe the limit as Δt approaches 0 is a kind of General Relativity. I doubt if it is equivalent to Einstein's GR, but it should yield equivalent results, after using up a lot more computer time than Einstein's GR.
 
Try this online relativistic star ship calculator . Plug in 500,000 ly and 1 g; it says the max speed will be 0.9999999999924886 c, and the trip to the halfway turn-around point would take 500,001.94 years by Earth clocks and 25.5 years by the ship's clock. To get halfway to Planet X in 1.5 years by the ship's clock, you would need to accelerate at 20.923 g. I think the simplest way to reconcile these numbers with those mentioned previously in this discussion would be to say the ship accelerates at 20.923 g, instead of 1 g.
 
For 20.923 g, the length contraction and time dilation factor (gamma) at the midway point is 5,399,000. So in the ship's coordinates, the distance to each planet from midway in ship's coordinates is 34 light days.

This is where I get confused: How many flashes from Earth passed the traveler from each direction before he reached Midway? Does he pass Midway at the right instant to see light flashes from both directions simultaneously? By measuring the interval between flashes, he can interpolate between nodes of the mega-light-year stick, to pinpoint his location in Earth coordinates.

Edit to cross out "half" and insert lines after paragraphs.
« Last Edit: 05/02/2016 22:37:09 by Phractality »
 

Offline Phractality

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 523
  • Thanked: 1 times
    • View Profile
Gave my brain a rest, smoked a different brand of legal-in-my-state substance, took another look at that relativistic space ship calculator. Too bad I can't just plug in the desired trip distance and duration, so I could tell Scottie how many warps I need from the engines. Instead, I have to zero in on 1.5 years "time on board" by the ship's clock by adjusting the acceleration up or down. 22, 21, 21.5,....

Instead of 20.923 g, today I'm getting 21.866 g. This is right at the limit of the calculator's capacity; the maximum speed for the journey is .999,999,999,999,996 c, and that last digit is not significant. Still, I wonder if it is no coincidence that .866 = sin(60).

I've had trouble attempting these calculations on Wolfram|Alpha. I used to be able to do such problems before they initiated the subscription service. If you have the subscription service, you should be able to get dozens of digits of precision.
 

Offline Phractality

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 523
  • Thanked: 1 times
    • View Profile
Sorry about that; I mistakenly plugged in 1,000,000 instead of 500,000. Those earlier numbers were correct, and not quite so close to the calculator's limits. The acceleration is 20.923425515 g. with a maximum speed of .999,999,999,999,982,9 c.

I wanted to edit that last post to strike out the wrong part. Apparently, there ain't much you can do to edit a post, is there?

The "time on earth" part of the calculator says, "500,000.092622 years, which is just 33.8 days longer than it took for the light pulse which left at the same time as the ship to reach Midway in Earth coordinates. That represents the time it takes for the ship to reach Midway (500,000 ly from Earth) in Earth coordinates.

For an Earth-based observer 500,000 years after launch, the ship is just 33.8 light-days behind the light flash that left Earth at launch time. So the next light flash from Earth must now be 0.907378 ly, or 331 light days, behind the ship, in Earth coordinates. In other words, the ship crosses Midway long before the next flash from Earth is seen from the ship. The light flashes from Earth are redshifted and stretched farther apart, but not uniformly so. The distance between flashes from Earth, in ship's coordinates, varies because Earth clocks (and the Earth year) gradually got slower as the ship accelerated. As Earth clocks got slower, the flashes were emitted less often, in ship's coordinates.

No light flashes from Earth pass the ship before Midway; only two flashes pass the ship after it Midway; the third flash just catches up at Planet X. That third flash from Earth tells Planet-Xians to celebrate the year 1,000,003. (They set their clocks at 0, not 3000, at liftoff from Earth.) In Planet X coordinates, same as Earth coordinates, Earthians are celebrating the year 1,003,000; I guess there was a slight delay from the original launch schedule.

The flashes passing the ship from Planet X are blueshifted and pancaked together, from the ship's perspective, as the relative speed increases. This is the inverse of the redshift behind the ship. At Midway, the ship has passed 500,000 light flashes from Planet X. Flash #500,001 is just milliseconds ahead. For a while, flashes from Planet X pass the ship in rapid succession. Deceleration gradually stretches the flashes farther apart, so the ship passes them less often. They arrive just as the 1,000,003rd flash is being sent.

What I'm looking for is, what is the time on Earth and on Planet X in ship's coordinates when the ship crosses Midway?
 

Offline Colin2B

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1921
  • Thanked: 125 times
    • View Profile
I wanted to edit that last post to strike out the wrong part. Apparently, there ain't much you can do to edit a post, is there?
You should be able to edit any of your own posts using the modify button.
I generally add a note explaining what I've done.
 

Offline Phractality

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 523
  • Thanked: 1 times
    • View Profile
Just a comment about how near impossible it is, according to our current understanding, for anything with mass to travel 1M ly in 3 years:

That space ship calculator says the ship would have 4.86 x 1023 Joule/kg of kinetic energy at Midway. Let's hope we don't run into any stray molecules out there! One proton would pack a milijoule; about equivalent to a gnat on your windshield at 60 mph. Get out the bug spray; make that proton spray.

If you had an ideal engine, converting matter and antimatter to a laser beam out the back end at 100% efficiency, you would need to leave earth with 4.86 x 1023 kg of matter/antimatter fuel for each kg of ship and fuel that will reach Midway. And if you wish to decelerate to a stop at Planet X, you will need to burn another 4.86 x 1023 kg of fuel for each kg of the ship that remains at touchdown.

Let's say your ship, crew, cargo, etc., on touchdown must have 100 t of mass.
Then your liftoff mass is going to be approximately (4.86 x 1023)2 = 2.36 x 1047 kg.

No problem! All we have to do is pack 40,000 Milky Way Galaxies into our fuel tank, and hope we don't cause a gnaB giB in the process. I hope you're good at packing!
« Last Edit: 07/02/2016 19:20:12 by Phractality »
 

The Naked Scientists Forum


 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums