ANOTHER SMOKING GUN: Maui Fire Breaks SCIENCE as we know it…
(www.youtube.com)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (54)
sorted by:
The energy component of the energy momentum tensor (T00) in the solution to the Alcubierre metric is a function of the velocity (v^2), the physical shape of the transition region (the bubble shape) as a function of the interior (df/dr)^2, and the size of the interior relative to the exterior ((y^2 + x^2)/r^2). Changing any of those things changes the energy requirements. Thus going slower than the speed of light (or much slower as the case may be) substantially reduces the energy requirements. Changing the size of the exterior bubble relative to it’s inside can also substantially reduce the energy (at least the negative energy), and changing the shape of the bubble itself can decrease it as well (or possibly increase it as a trade off for altering the relative interior/exterior dimensions).
Solutions to changing the shape of the bubble have accomplished substantial reductions in the required energy, as have solutions that change the size of the exterior relative to its interior (think the tent in Harry Potter). Interestingly, if such a bubble were to be made, I think the objects inside would appear smaller than they are (the light path (geodesic) from the interior to the exterior is "focused" at the smaller boundary). Then again, it depends on the exact shape of the boundary (it might spread (diffuse) the light e.g.). Regardless, I think this would cause some interesting visual effects upon a change in momentum (direction or speed) as the warp bubble itself (including its boundary) would be motivating the change, and would thus be changing shape slightly, altering the path for the light.
As far as I remember, the lowest energy requirements (using "negative matter") were on the order of 100-1000kg (E=mc^2) to make a bubble sufficient to drive a reasonable size ship, though if I remember correctly that was for v>c (or maybe v=c), so probably a fair bit less if your relative delta v is only a couple thousand miles an hour. Still a lot though, and every change in momentum requires more energy. I haven’t really considered how the exterior surface of the bubble would interact with the atmosphere, though I think it should act just like any other hard physical object (due to a pressure differential and/or build up of air at the boundary), which means drag, sonic booms, etc., thus more energy, though you can potentially change its shape and its size to reduce that interaction.
The energy requirements for the solutions I am aware of are pretty large, though there may be solutions that reduce it sufficiently, and/or it could be that GR is the wrong model to use in this scope, and movement through space however the hell you want and/or controlling inertia is trivial if you understand gravity on a more fundamental level ( if it is really an E&M effect for example).
I think you have an insuperable obstacle in the absence of "negative matter." (I don't think you mean antimatter.)
I do not mean antimatter, I mean mass that "pushes" instead of "pulls" (to expand space instead of contract it). But it doesn't necessarily have to be negative mass. It can be "negative energy," because it is "energy" that shapes space according to GR, not mass (mass works too because mass is just energy). A "negative energy" is seen in the Casimir effect, and in Hawking radiation (one observed, one theoretical) so it's not without precedence. What we call "Dark Energy" could also potentially be a negative energy and it certainly seems to expand space. Our cosmological models say "it's not negative energy it's negative pressure" (even though it acts exactly like negative energy), but quite frankly, our cosmological models are all wrong. Everyone knows they are wrong, but they hold onto them with both hands and won't let go mostly I think to keep their jobs (paraphrased from my graduate cosmology professor). That's an aside however.
Except for the Casimir effect (which is an observation), these are all "arguments from the model," not arguments from actual evidence. The models we have, have nothing to do with how things really are, they are just models. They are useful, but what can really happen (all possible phenomena) is unknown and unknowable if we rely on the models themselves. Every time we get a new observation that wasn't predicted by a previous model, we make a new model or modify an existing one by injecting new axioms, which is really the same thing an entirely new model. We call it "the same model," (the Standard Model has fundamentally changed numerous times e.g.) but it's really not, because it required completely new premises (and subsequent math) to fit observation.
So yes, I don't have any idea what "negative matter" might mean as an observable, but to create a warp bubble or a wormhole (according to GR) all we really need to be able to do is expand space. We know how to contract space pretty well, just put mass/energy into it. We don't know how to expand space very well, but we have observations that suggest that it does that fairly often on its own. Just because we don't have very good models that allow us to engineer the expansion of space on command, doesn't mean it can't be done, nor does it mean someone else hasn't figured out how to do it.
I said I did not think you were referring to antimatter, which exists. The Casimir effect has nothing to do with "negative energy." It has to do with the restriction of allowable wavelengths in the Casimir gap, creating an imbalance in the vacuum fluctuation of photons. As the gap gets smaller, the allowable wavelengths are increasingly excluded and the differential pressure is perceived / measured as an increasing force. In some ways, it is similar to the Van der Waals force, as an effect that results from close contact of matter.
I have no particular love for any of the popular cosmology models. There is good evidence against them all (see Halton Arp's work), including the suggestion that we actually have a steady-state universe. Fred Hoyle may be vindicated. Frederick Kantor also has an alternative explanation of the distance-redshift relationship, based on the loss of positional information of the long-distance propagating photon. (Kantor put his theory to the test by using it to predict the masses of all the known leptons. He was accurate to within small fractions of a percent.)
It follows that I have no credence in "Dark Matter" or "Dark Energy." I had an interesting conversation with a practicing astronomer on the subject of cosmology, and we were of a like mind about the necessity of scientific honesty including the recognition of "We don't know." Too many people get wrapped up in hypotheses without any evidence to back them up. As a result of this cultish captivity, a true pioneer like Arp was summarily denied observation time because he was following an open-minded pursuit of truth that was not based on the "standard model."
The way the math works, the Casimir effect is a negative energy density.
I have seen some steady state models, some are interesting. I had not heard of this however. I will have to look it up.
I don't think there is anything wrong with pursuing your ideas tenaciously, even if the evidence is lacking. The problem comes from not allowing yourself to see what evidence there is that may be to the contrary of your suppositions. Some of the most interesting shit has come from people being stubborn, albeit with enough appreciation of the reality of their situation that they were able to work honestly.
I used to think this was the case too. I no longer do. Science has been purposefully put into a box. It is completely controlled. The next part of my report will make that perfectly clear beyond a reasonable doubt. All of science has been purposefully misguided to not look in certain directions. It's kinda amazing, but the evidence is overwhelming.