Spaceship could fly faster than light

Discuss life, the universe, and everything with other members of this site. Get to know your fellow polywell enthusiasts.

Moderators: tonybarry, MSimon

kurt9
Posts: 566
Joined: Mon Oct 15, 2007 4:14 pm
Location: Portland, Oregon, USA

Post by kurt9 »

djolds1 wrote:
Also don't know if the high-Tesla fields are still required for the putative FTL application. All work since Tajmar's initial reports two years ago have indicated vastly reduced technical requirements for the STL "normal" propulsive experiment.

I find EHT/LQG more attractive as a massively elegant GUT proposal however. It "fits."
I believe this is the "boson coupling" that Droecher and Hauser have written about lately. Tajmar's most recent paper casts doubt on the existence of this.

Droecher and Hauser really need to run their proposed experiment. If boson coupling turns out to false, EHT may still be valid, but they will be back to having to generate the 40-60T fields to make use of the theory.

What attracted me to EHT (other than the possibility of an FTL) was that it starts with GR and uses it to derive QM. I think this approach has more merit than using QM as the start point and attempting to derive GR with it.

BTW, are you the same Duane over on the EHT discussion forum?

gblaze42
Posts: 227
Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2007 8:04 pm

Post by gblaze42 »

djolds1 wrote:
gblaze42 wrote:
gblaze42 wrote:For example, the 60 Tesla magnetic fields needed to negate gravity, or possibly push a spacecraft into "Hyperspace". If this were true there would be no magnetic stars which revolve in seconds and have magnetic fields of 10 gigateslas!
Not how the mechanism is reported to work, as I think you know. Tho per this a neutron star would generate a gravitophoton effect (but not FTL).

Also don't know if the high-Tesla fields are still required for the putative FTL application. All work since Tajmar's initial reports two years ago have indicated vastly reduced technical requirements for the STL "normal" propulsive experiment.

I find EHT/LQG more attractive as a massively elegant GUT proposal however. It "fits."
I was trying to be humorous but it emphasis the issue, it's very nebulous as to how FTL would work as none of the equations I've read on EHT seems to state the properties of "Hyperspace". Even so a "Magnetar" as I stated before has magnetic fields vastly larger than even a pulsar. I would even surmise that the effects of "gravitophotons" should be very evident.

EHT to me seems 'to good to be true". It (EHT) doesn't seem to flow to me, it's not very polished theory, probably due to the lack of research.

I believe a true GUT won't seem to "fit". that is one of the reasons why I believe quantum physics works so well, it's counter intuitive to classical physics, and I believe a GUT will be as well.

djolds1
Posts: 1296
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 8:03 am

Post by djolds1 »

kurt9 wrote:BTW, are you the same Duane over on the EHT discussion forum?
Si Senor.
gblaze42 wrote:EHT to me seems 'to good to be true". It (EHT) doesn't seem to flow to me, it's not very polished theory, probably due to the lack of research.


The FTL aspect is too good to be true. It is the postulated solution to a paradox that would appear to be possible and real in EHT. Come up with another solution to the paradox and the FTL mode may fall by the wayside. Tho as causality violations appear to be totally possible in wormhole models, albeit hated by the physicists, I don't see much problem from that angle.

IMO the rest fits together very well. Doesn't mean its correct, but it is far more testable than strings. And unlike the Standard Model it provides fundamental particle masses from theory. Even if EHT is flawed beyond salvage, I'd lay good money that an LQG approach is the way to go for a GUT.
gblaze42 wrote:I believe a true GUT won't seem to "fit". that is one of the reasons why I believe quantum physics works so well, it's counter intuitive to classical physics, and I believe a GUT will be as well.
Go back to Aristotelian physics and astronomy. VERY ugly, and to "fix" the problems that were always cropping up they just kept adding ever more epicycles. Any Standard Model-esque "ugly GUT" will end up like Aristotelian physics. Made an object of eventual ridicule by its own needless complexity.

The great ways of conceiving of the universe have worked because of their intuitive simplicity. Parsimony serves a valuable function.

Duane
Vae Victis

hanelyp
Posts: 2255
Joined: Fri Oct 26, 2007 8:50 pm

Post by hanelyp »

djolds1 wrote:Not how the mechanism is reported to work, as I think you know. Tho per this a neutron star would generate a gravitophoton effect (but not FTL).
Reading through that paper, I see what looks like a critical error in math on page 18.
Inertial Transformation in Heim's Theory

P=m0 (1−v^2/ c^2)^(−1/ 2)(v , ic)
=(mv , imc)=( p , imc) with p=mv
Since the magnitude of P is an invariant, both momentum and energy
conservation hold:
mv = m'v' and mc=m'c'

Since m > m' , it follows that c' > c and v' > v and therefore v'/ c'
= v / c.
Two problems I see:
- I'm not sure about the given energy term. In relativity theory it would be gamma*m0*c^2.
- It does not follow from the magnitude of P being invariant that any sub vector is invariant.

Since the predicted FTL effect derives from this, I see a problem in the predicted FTL.

Keegan
Posts: 206
Joined: Fri Aug 17, 2007 6:29 am
Location: Brisbane, Australia

Post by Keegan »

djolds1 wrote: String Theory is virtually the definition of the most un-parsiminous concept in human history, and such a blatant violation of Occam's Razor should have killed the conjecture's credibility post haste.
Nice one Duane.

Hedging your bets with Polywell and Hiem Theory seems to be a nice way to go :)
Purity is Power

MSimon
Posts: 14331
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Post by MSimon »

Keegan wrote:
djolds1 wrote: String Theory is virtually the definition of the most un-parsiminous concept in human history, and such a blatant violation of Occam's Razor should have killed the conjecture's credibility post haste.
Nice one Duane.

Hedging your bets with Polywell and Hiem Theory seems to be a nice way to go :)
Lubos Motl (a very bright guy who blogs at The Reference Frame) is a string theory guy. He doesn't have much use for LQG guys. Calls them crackpots.

I have sent him links (posted at his blog) to the rotating gravity stuff posted here re: Heim theory. So far he has not commented on it.

He does get capitalism and is a small warmer (i.e ~1C per CO2 doubling) so he does do good thinking.

It will be interesting to see how it all plays out.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

djolds1
Posts: 1296
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 8:03 am

Post by djolds1 »

MSimon wrote:Lubos Motl (a very bright guy who blogs at The Reference Frame) is a string theory guy. He doesn't have much use for LQG guys. Calls them crackpots.
Any specifics? Given the infinite variations of string/brane/m and its apparent inability to be tested in any way, string/brane/m is metaphysics. Albeit with putatively beautiful mathematics. The Pythagorean mystics of Antiquity would've appreciated that.

Of course, getting anyone to admit they've wasted their life's work is never easy.
MSimon wrote:I have sent him links (posted at his blog) to the rotating gravity stuff posted here re: Heim theory. So far he has not commented on it.


Heim is a left field variation of LQG, so I doubt it gets respect unless it proves out via the efforts of the small numbers of those involved.

Of course, try getting respect for work by patent clerks these days. The focus on formal accreditation in the sciences and professions over the last century has not been entirely to our benefit.
MSimon wrote:He does get capitalism and is a small warmer (i.e ~1C per CO2 doubling) so he does do good thinking.
Oh, no doubt we've had small-c warming. The problem is that many cite 1850 as the baseline, the end of the Little Ice Age.

Duane
Vae Victis

Keegan
Posts: 206
Joined: Fri Aug 17, 2007 6:29 am
Location: Brisbane, Australia

Post by Keegan »

MSimon wrote:Lubos Motl (a very bright guy who blogs at The Reference Frame) is a string theory guy. He doesn't have much use for LQG guys. Calls them crackpots.

I have sent him links

I doubt you will hear anything back :wink:

Funny thing you mention Lubos, Simon. I heard about him about a year or two ago. The consensus was he was rather difficult to work with, and had his string theory shoes firmly concreted in the ground. Which is fine by me, if he is right.

He would mostly take Hiem's work in the same regard we take Tokamaks.

Its just rare that you hear such a simple differentiation between such complex theories. If more people knew that Hiem theory was confined to the Plank length while String theory charged on Ad Infinitum, i suspect String theory would be far less En vogue.
Purity is Power

gblaze42
Posts: 227
Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2007 8:04 pm

Post by gblaze42 »

Keegan wrote:
Its just rare that you hear such a simple differentiation between such complex theories. If more people knew that Hiem theory was confined to the Plank length while String theory charged on Ad Infinitum, i suspect String theory would be far less En vogue.
I doubt that, at least I have a grasp of string theory, However incredibly small, of how they propose it works, true there are some limitations to testing but we are approaching a level of technology that we should be able to get a glimpse of it. Heim theory seems more disjointed to me and hard to follow.

I've asked a couple professors from my old Alma mater that I knew and remembered me (it's been over 20 years). I'll be honest with you, no one takes it seriously, yes they have read Heim theory, but don't see much merit in it, at least for now. Most physicists don't care if that Heim theory is confined to the Planck length, it's not about "if it should" but more of an objective "it's just the way it is". We have to try and remove what we want and let nature tell us exactly whats going on.

djolds1
Posts: 1296
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 8:03 am

Post by djolds1 »

gblaze42 wrote:I doubt that, at least I have a grasp of string theory, However incredibly small, of how they propose it works, true there are some limitations to testing but we are approaching a level of technology that we should be able to get a glimpse of it. Heim theory seems more disjointed to me and hard to follow.
Proposed methods of testing String Theory? IIRC I've never seen any.
gblaze42 wrote:Most physicists don't care if that Heim theory is confined to the Planck length, it's not about "if it should" but more of an objective "it's just the way it is". We have to try and remove what we want and let nature tell us exactly whats going on.
I don't quite understand your meaning here. Do you mean the physicists are treating Strings/Brane/M as "Its just the way it is?"

Duane
Vae Victis

gblaze42
Posts: 227
Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2007 8:04 pm

Post by gblaze42 »

djolds1 wrote:
Proposed methods of testing String Theory? IIRC I've never seen any.
gblaze42 wrote:Most physicists don't care if that Heim theory is confined to the Planck length, it's not about "if it should" but more of an objective "it's just the way it is". We have to try and remove what we want and let nature tell us exactly whats going on.
I don't quite understand your meaning here. Do you mean the physicists are treating Strings/Brane/M as "Its just the way it is?"

Duane

1) http://media.www.dailyillini.com/media/ ... 5086.shtml

2) http://www.news.wisc.edu/13422

and 3) http://www.physorg.com/news10682.html

and there are many more if you google it.

I mean it sounds that people who believe in heim theory want it to work, which is subjective.

djolds1
Posts: 1296
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 8:03 am

Post by djolds1 »

Gracias.
gblaze42 wrote:I mean it sounds that people who believe in heim theory want it to work, which is subjective.
True. The headline claim of EHT is fulfillment of the childhood dream of many a nerdboy, and I will admit is what originally caught my attention.

However, after examination and review of related sources, I find the LQG family of approaches to be intuitively superior to the String approaches.

* Based on simple extensions of quantum approaches to relativity,

* does not rely on additional real physical dimensions that can never be accessed nor observed, and

* they do not rely on notional particles that can never be manipulated nor directly observed (sub-planck length) by physical mechanism.

Too many "you can never see it nor 'touch' it" caveats in the String approach.

Heim, specifically, is either an LQG approach with 50 years of slow development behind it, or totally off track. But LQG still seems far more rooted in the real, and not the "beautiful" mathematical notional. The West's last indulgence of dominance by the mathematical notional gave us the Platonic Forms, which were shall we say less than productive. Strings has the distinct odor of what goes around coming around yet again.

Duane
Vae Victis

MSimon
Posts: 14331
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Post by MSimon »

I think relativity implies two connected at least three dimensional spaces where the speed of light is the constant connecting the two spaces. i.e. Lorentz-Fitzgerald looked at geometrically.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

MSimon
Posts: 14331
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Post by MSimon »

The West's last indulgence of dominance by the mathematical notional gave us the Platonic Forms, which were shall we say less than productive. Strings has the distinct odor of what goes around coming around yet again.
Where the Platonic forms went wrong was the concentration on the wrong ones. Spheres and cubes. Had more efforts gone into the tetra and dodec/icosa we might have been further along.

However, spheres and cubes were more practical for the math and joining technology commonly available at the time.

What we can do limits how we can think.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

kurt9
Posts: 566
Joined: Mon Oct 15, 2007 4:14 pm
Location: Portland, Oregon, USA

Post by kurt9 »

gblaze42 wrote:

1) http://media.www.dailyillini.com/media/ ... 5086.shtml

2) http://www.news.wisc.edu/13422

and 3) http://www.physorg.com/news10682.html

and there are many more if you google it.

I mean it sounds that people who believe in heim theory want it to work, which is subjective.
I just looked at these. Number 3 is the one that makes sense and is doable within the next few years with the LHC. Number 2 seems too theoretical and number 1 is simply impractical for the foreseeable future.

It is also worth noting that the LHC can falsify EHT within the same time period as performing number 3.

Post Reply