Physicists: Faster-Than-Light Travel Might Be Possible

FoxNews ^ | August 13, 2008 | Jeremy Hsu

[BloodOrFreedom]

Travel by bubble might seem more appropriate for witches in Oz, but two physicists suggest that a future spaceship could fold a space-time bubble around itself to travel faster than the speed of light.

We're talking about the very distant future, of course.

The idea involves manipulating dark energy — the mysterious force behind the universe's ongoing expansion — to propel a spaceship forward without breaking the laws of physics.

"Think of it like a surfer riding a wave," said Gerald Cleaver, a physicist at Baylor University. "The ship would be pushed by the spatial bubble and the bubble would be traveling faster than the speed of light."

In theory, the universe grew faster than the speed of light for a very short time after the Big Bang, driven by the dark energy that represents about 74 percent of the total mass-energy budget in the universe.

Dark matter constitutes 22 percent of the budget, and normal matter (stars, planets and everything you see) makes up the remaining 4 percent or so.

Strange as it sounds, current evidence supports the notion that the fabric of space-time can expand faster than the speed of light, because the reality in which light travels is itself expanding.

Cleaver and Richard Obousy, a Baylor graduate student, tapped the latest idea in string theory to devise how to manipulate dark energy and accelerate a spaceship.

Their notion is based on the Alcubierre drive, which proposes expanding space-time behind the spaceship while also shrinking space-time in front.

String theorists had believed that a total of 10 dimensions exist, including height, width, length and time.

The other six dimensions exist largely as unknowns, but everything is based on hypothetical one-dimensional strings.

[LomanBill]

>>There are measurable effects to time due to acceleration.

“To time”.

Presumes time exists as an entity that is separate from the system that is being observed.

Certainly we can see changes in observable phenomena within a system; changes that are relative to the velocity of that system.

The concept of time is a human construct that is derived from observing these state changes within the system.

If the system no longer changes state, what happens to time?

[SuperLuminal]

Been there.....Done that! {:-)

[Ramius]

Wow... I checked out that site and I think it is fair for me to say that I have never seen a ranting, foaming word salad as thorough as that one.

I go through my life wanting to believe that most people are more or less like me, and that things that make sense to me will probably make sense to them, and vice versa, because we all grow up in mostly the same universe. But now and again I find out that there are some people that exist in a very, very different world.

[UCANSEE2]

“Night Speed.”

(and that’s the speed I can’t exceed)

: )

[UCANSEE2]

“I just wish I could comprehend what they’re talking about.”

It’s simple.

They are making it all up as they go.

[UCANSEE2]

“If the speed of light is what 187000 miles per second, what is the velocity of which these people speak?”

My question is, if I get caught, how much is the ticket gonna cost me?

[ETL]

One second is defined as “the duration of 9192631770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium 133 atom”

Correct:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second

Let's try this: imagine, instead of a vibrating 'caesium 133 atom', we have a beam of light bouncing back and forth between two mirrors within a vertical tube. Now let's say, for the sake of argument, that it takes precisely one second for the light beam to reach the top mirror (tic), reflect off it, reverse and reach the bottom mirror (toc).

Now let's say the light tube, or 'light clock', is resting on a flatbed train car, and on the flatbed is an observer who we will call "Observer A". To Observer A, who is moving along with the train and is therefore 'at rest' with respect to it, the light beam simply travels from the bottom of the tube *vertically* to the top of the tube and then straight back down again. From the relationship, speed equals distance over time, we get time equals distance over speed. So this is then how Observer A defines time (t=distance/speed). Important to note here is that light travels at the SAME SPEED for ALL observers.

Now let's say there is an observer B standing on the embankment alongside the train watching it pass by. From this observer's point of view, or frame of reference, the light beam does NOT simply travel vertically up and down. Rather, it travels on a slanted or diagonal path since the train is in motion, let's say from left to right as Observer B sees it. Now since the light beam travels a diagonal path between tic and toc, again, from OB's stationary point of view, the light beam therefore is traveling a LONGER distance (from OB's perspective). Therefore, since the light beam is traveling a longer distance (from OB's perspective) AND since light travels at the same speed for all observers, the light beam MUST take a longer time to bounce between the two mirrors (tic-toc). Therefore, the two observers (A and B) do NOT agree on what a "second" is.

http://galileo.phys.virginia.edu/classes/252/srelwhat.html

For anyone who has taken Physics in high school or college, you are probably aware of the "light clock" model for demonstrating Einstein's Special Relativity theory.

[UCANSEE2]

“The question “Does time exist” was a matter of debate among him and his peers.”

They must have had ‘plenty of time’ to sit around and discuss such things.

[UCANSEE2]

Why is it that ‘plenty of time’, and ‘very little time’ are almost identical, clockwise?

[UCANSEE2]

“>>90% of the Universe is missing. ;-)”

If the universe is truly infinite, then no such measurement is logically possible.

[UCANSEE2]

"or that our planet is the only one out of billions that is capable of supporting human some form of evolving intelligent life "

[RexBeach]

Are fines doubled in a work zone?

So, then you slow down to impulse power?

I don’t know how people come up with this stuff, but I guess they must be pretty smart!

[LomanBill]

The light clock model assumes that distance is an invariant quantity.

When the quantity of space compressed within a given matrix system varies - so does the distance.

This is seen quite clearly in the phenomena of gravitational lensing.

[ETL]

The light clock model assumes that distance is an invariant quantity.

No it doesn't. The distance the longer diagonal light path takes is measured in the stationary outsider's frame of reference, which of course is fixed with respect to him. The shorter straight up and down path is measured by the observer moving along with the light clock. It all stems from the assumption that the speed of light is the same for all observers, regardless of their state of motion.

http://galileo.phys.virginia.edu/classes/252/srelwhat.html

[Southack]

Dark matter doesn’t actually exist. It’s just a tool for math.

[ETL]

Dark matter doesn’t actually exist. It’s just a tool for math.

First of all, there are two basic forms of dark matter. One is simply ordinary matter which isn't radiating enough light for us to detect it, or is too small for us to detect. The other, 'non-baryonic' dark matter, is believed to be some sort of strange exotic type of matter which doesn't interact with light and so is 'invisible' to our detectors. Both forms of dark matter are usually known of through their gravitational interactions with other objects. For example, the way in which the outer stars of many spiral galaxies move faster than expected as according to well established laws for orbiting objects (Kepler's 3rd Law, specifically).

[LomanBill]

It still treats distance as being homogeneous and accounts for the time dilation based upon movement through homogeneous space.

>>regardless of their state of motion.

What happens when the observer is not moving - but the light passes near a massive object en route to the observer?

Does the light move through more space or less?

[ETL]

Gravity is equivalent to acceleration. So it would be as if the light clock in the example was moving faster and faster, changing from one reference frame to another one. And as it moved faster and faster, three things would happen (according to Special Relativity Theory):

1) The moving object progressively shrinks in length (from the outside stationary observer's point of view)

2) Time aboard the moving frame progressively slows (from the outside stationary observer's point of view)

3) The mass of the clock, and any other mass-containing object aboard the moving frame, progressively increases (from the outside stationary observer's point of view)

Certainly mass effects the fabric of space, but these effects wouldn't come into play here with such low mass objects. There isn't anywhere near the amount of mass here to bend the light beam's path. To bend a light beam's path, you need extreme amounts of mass, somewhere around the mass of the Sun. In fact, it was the bending of light coming from planet Mercury around the Sun which helped confirmed Einstein's GENERAL Theory of Relativity. Special Relativity only applies to things moving at a constant velocity (straight line, constant speed, basic inertial motion), while General covers it all.

[LomanBill]

1st of all, thanks for indulging me, I don't get very many opportunities to talk about this stuff.    

 

On first glance, I didn't realize that ALL of the components within the light clock diagram were contained within the inertial frame, and I jumped to conclusion based upon that.

 

 

[three things would happen (according to Special Relativity Theory)]

 

It seems the interpretation of these observations is dependent upon one's understanding of the nature of time itself. 

 

If time doesn't exist independently from the system - independent of the inertial frame being observed - then we're left having to explain any observed dilation/constriction of time as being an effect of the progressive relationship between Energy, Mass, and Space within that inertial frame.

 

The observation is that time progresses relative to the speed of the inertial frame.

 

If time is derived solely from state changes within an inertial frame; then what is happening within the inertial frame that accounts for the inverse relationship between speed and time?  If I now understand the light-clock model correctly, the answer is thus:

 

If the state change being measured is the movement of a beam of light between two points, and C is constant, then, in order for "time" to slow down, the distance between the two points within the inertial frame must be increasing.  Is that correct?

 

But this would seem to contradict the idea that  1) The moving object progressively shrinks in length

 

It seemingly creates a paradox where, simultaneously, as the volume of the observed inertial frame appears to become smaller (from the outside stationary observer's point of view), it must also be expanding within, in order to account for the slowing progression of state change (time) as derived from C.

 

How is that resolved?

 

More "space" is compressed into the inertial frame?

[adorno]

Awesome! I just wish I could comprehend what they’re talking about.

There's not much there to comprehend.

As the article says:

The other six dimensions exist largely as unknowns, but everything is based on hypothetical one-dimensional strings.

A newer theory, called M-theory, suggests that those strings all vibrate in yet another dimension.

Which means that, what they're proposing is totally dependent upon that last theory of theirs being true. If that last dimension in their theory does not exist, which means their theory is also false, then time travel as they're proposing would be pure fantasy.

We don't know if the other six dimensions exist and now these two physicists need yet another dimension for their time travel to be possible.

The only way to travel in time is to (and here's my own theory), stop time. Thus, the universe was able to expand faster than the speed of light only with the suspension of time. In fact, time was the last dimension created when the universe got underway.