Would there have been time ordered ambiguities withing the jet stream that was belched forth out of the super-massive black hole at the center of Messier 87? The jet stream was clocked at 4 to 6 times the speed of light. If this is somehow a trick if light or of angles, then why don't we see this sporadically for low energy cosmological events, as well.
When a super-massive black hole spits out of jet stream that is 5000 light years long, when it appears to violate the laws of physics, a reasonable person has to suspect that stability conditions for the laws of physics have been exceeded.
What ever time order of events you are talking about, there is a super-massive black hole out there that seems to disagree with you.
Lawrence B. Crowell replied on Jul. 20, 2010 @ 13:22 GMT
The physics of
superluminal jets is now well understood. This is fairly elementary to understand.
LC
report post as inappropriate
Jason Mark Wolfe replied on Jul. 20, 2010 @ 17:44 GMT
I looked over the superluminal jet article. If line of sight is 19 degrees or less, then the superluminal effect is just an optical illusion. However, in the case of M87, the line if sight is at 43 degrees.
I can't think of a more significant challenge to relativity than the superluminal motion of jets. This is not something that physicists can dismiss readily without appearing to be dismissing a significant challenge to relativity.
report post as inappropriate
Lawrence B. Crowell replied on Jul. 20, 2010 @ 20:35 GMT
Jason,
As the Wiki article indicates this has been modelled and fits with the data. There has been no great trumpet blast proclaiming FTL in the unvierse or the lab. Believe me if this happens we will all know about it.
Cheers LC
report post as inappropriate
Jason Wolfe replied on Jul. 20, 2010 @ 21:07 GMT
Lawrence,
Would you personally be excited if FTL really existed in the universe? I need to know that you are not deeply motivated to conceal such a possibility. If I knew that you would delighted by a scientifically verified FTL phenomena, I would no longer need to debate M87.
report post as inappropriate
Lawrence B. Crowell replied on Jul. 20, 2010 @ 22:59 GMT
If FTL were found in the universe my reactions would vary some. To be honest I think that faster than light propagation of information would mean that a whole set of bases for physics would collapse. This would involve causality and frankly logic as well might be in trouble. Causality goes back to Thales of Miletus in 580BCE. I think that my first reaction would be shock and frankly despair. I would then have to wait or maybe work on how physics might recover these basic principle with FTL. Yet to be honest FTL might simply mean that the universe can’t really be understood in any complete manner, even as an effective field theory.
I am not terribly worried that something like this will happen.
Cheers LC
report post as inappropriate
Jason Wolfe replied on Jul. 21, 2010 @ 00:14 GMT
Lawrence,
That's a reasonable answer. I don't know if you're a critic of my interpretation of physics. I believe that everything, GR & QM, is implemented with virtual photons; more accurately, with building blocks of the form exp^i(kx-wt) which tranmit causality at the speed of light. I hold this idea as absolute. It has paid off very well by giving me some great ideas.
One of those ideas is shift-photons as objects that transmit a gravity-like force. Each photon transmits a force equal to,
I am looking at Phase Modulation and Frequency Modulation equipment trying to find what I need to run the experiment. The idea is to generate a lot of these photons.
What if the experiment worked. Is it then possible, with enough money and power availability, to build an Alcubierre drive? It would also be similar to a wormhole. I would build lots of high power tractor beams around the mouth of a cylinder. On the inside, I would build lots of repulsor beams.
Question: do you think with enough terawatts of power, I could build an Alcubierre drive/wormhole? Why or why not?
If not? Then what would go wrong?
report post as inappropriate
Jason Wolfe replied on Jul. 21, 2010 @ 02:06 GMT
Lawrence,
I hope you understand that I do not wish despair upon anyone. I am only trying to pursue a possibiliity because I believe it will lead to new physics. New physics means new technology. New technology means new jobs.
report post as inappropriate
Lawrence B. Crowell replied on Jul. 21, 2010 @ 03:31 GMT
Jason: If you want to do some blog archeology I have addressed this issue in some of the FQXI pages here. The number of problem are large, ranging from violations of energy conditions, lack of boundedness conditions in quantum states and fields, and so forth.
Cheers LC
report post as inappropriate
Jason Wolfe replied on Jul. 21, 2010 @ 04:37 GMT
Lawrence,
I really wish it was easier to locate blog entries on this website. Just like you, I have limited time too.
Energy conservation won't be a problem. Everything that I do is with due consideration of conservation of energy.
Lack of boundedness? Just because the mathematical physics can't be worked out for want of boundedness, it doesn't mean that the phenomena can't happen. I have no idea what the probability is that some girl will wink at me in a store. There really is no mathematical way to describe such an event. But such things do happen.
report post as inappropriate
Lawrence B. Crowell replied on Jul. 21, 2010 @ 12:58 GMT
Jason,
The upshot is this. Spacetimes which permit information to propagate from one point to another faster than light violate the weak energy condition T^{00} >= 0. I am not going to get into hair splitting issues over configurations of spacetimes which have this violation. There is no proof as yet of the chronology protection or cosmic censorship hypothesis, but so far spacetimes with this FTL property violate T^{00} >= 0. The quantum field which acts as the source of this curvature then has no minimum energy eigenvalue. As a result these sources of curvature generate a huge quantity of radiation, which also perturbs the spacetime enormously. This reason and with others means that the universe fails to really make much sense.
Ford, Romans and others have pretty carefully examined these pathologies. FTL by all means studied so far, which implies time ordering ambiguity or closed timelike loops, represents a complete disaster for physics. This is in spite of the fact FTL makes for nice science fiction. Such configurations in nature may only take place in quantum gravity near or at the string energy (Hagedorn temperature), but this would not mean it can realistically exist on a macroscopic scale.
Cheers LC
report post as inappropriate
Jason Wolfe replied on Jul. 21, 2010 @ 18:53 GMT
Lawrence,
I suppose it does make sense that if FTL were possible, the T^{00} >= 0 condition would be violated. As an example, if I had a spaceship of mass m that could travel at a velocity of v = 10c, it's kinetic energy would be
K = 1/2(m)(v)^2 = 1/2(m)(10c)^2 = 50mc^2. This is of course an insanely huge amount of energy.
However, if superluminal travel is ever to be achieved, then the existence of a hyper-space is mandatory. Could there be a coexisting hyperspace that we don't even know about? Nobody knows for sure.
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Jul. 21, 2010 @ 19:11 GMT
1/2 mv² = mgh .....impossible Jason!
Impossible also for hyperdimensions they don't exist...we have only a 3D space Jason really.
On the other side, we have a pure topology in rotations around the center of our universe, the evolution makes the rest........the the velocity is important of course but it's the toplogy the essential and the decrease of spaces between cosmological spheres....and quant.spheres....
your ideas are very interestings but irrealistics, if you focus on foundamentals you shall improve a space ship...you know the biology, the shield, the sphere of motion, the lattices between quantum spheresz and the universal link of cosmological spheres...the spaces between spheers is the same, only the velocities of rot change.......
Regards
Steve
report post as inappropriate
Jason Wolfe replied on Jul. 21, 2010 @ 21:12 GMT
Steve,
"1/2 mv² = mgh .....impossible Jason!" What are you talking about? I didn't say that. But this equation is correct.
Some people say that FTL is impossible. I'm looking at the details of how it's impossible. Lawrence says that FTL results in a violation of T^{00} >= 0; that means that FTL requires negative energy. I'm looking at that.
First things first.
Step 1: test red/blue shift yields artificial gravity (acceleration field). If tests show that this will work, we have to perfect this technology.
Step 2: Build a wormhole device. The force generators will be built (bolted down) to the mouth of a cylinder/tunnel. Those force generators will be tractor (attraction) devices. Inside of the tunnel there will be more force generators that are bolted down. Bolting down these force generators fixes boundary conditions.
Fixes boundary conditions.
Fixes boundary conditions.
The force generators inside of the tunnel are repulsive and aimed away from the mouth to the other end of the tunnel.
If the supplied power is high enough, we might be able to induce a wormhole with...
fixed boundary conditions...
fixed boundary conditions...
...
report post as inappropriate
Jason Mark Wolfe replied on Jul. 22, 2010 @ 01:35 GMT
Lawrence,
I've been thinking about wormholes. Let's say I build a wormhole simulator within and around a concrete cylinder. At the mouth of entrance, there are strong attractive forces. Inside and at the output of the cylinder, there are strong repulsive forces. If something gets too close to the mouth of the wormhole simulator, it gets pulled in. It falls through the cylinder and gets catapulted out the back end.
That is how a typical wormhole would work, right?
If I am using gravitational energy, then I have a problem. My potential energy, between the mouth and the output, is discontinuous. Is that what you meant by boundary conditions?
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Jul. 22, 2010 @ 11:17 GMT
Jason,
I know my equations, like you I am passionated by the equations.
Thus thanks to say me it's correct, fortunally I know 1/2mv²=mgh...like I know m1v1=m2v2....like U=RI...AND THIS AND THAT AND THERE .....the mechjanics, the motions, etc etc it's our laws jason and we must accept these foundamentals.
First the whole is false ...why ....the whormholes do not exist, like a BH ...in fact a BH is a sphere jason and has a rule in the galaxy and inside the universal sphere...it's not a door or others.....Second you need an big energy , negative, it's not possible.
But I like read your extrapolations,be sure.
A whormhole is simply an error.They don't exist in my humble opinion.
report post as inappropriate
Jason Wolfe replied on Jul. 22, 2010 @ 17:33 GMT
Dear Steve,
Do you know what a wormhole is used for?
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Jul. 22, 2010 @ 17:44 GMT
Dear Jason,
No,I am not a specialist of wormholes .
Could you elaborate,please?
report post as inappropriate
Jason Wolfe replied on Jul. 22, 2010 @ 17:44 GMT
Let me tell you Steve,
If my tractor/repulsor beam works, if red/blue shift really does induce an acceleration field, I am going to build an amusement park ride. I am going to construct a long tube about 300 meters long. I am going to build tractor beams at the mouth of the tube. I am going to build tractor/repulsor beams all the way down the length of the tube. Parents are going to take there kids there. The kid will "fall" into the wormhole. They will accelerate really fast. At about the middle of the wormhole/tube/ride, the falling/acceleration will change polarities which will slow the child down. When they reach the other side of the ride, they will just "fall out" onto the mat.
For the sake of my personal amusement, once a day I will NOT change the polarity. The kid will fall faster and faster. By the time they reach the outflow of the ride, the kid will be spit out at about a 100mph.
I'll call it the "Evil Wormhole".
report post as inappropriate
Jason Wolfe replied on Jul. 22, 2010 @ 17:46 GMT
I know Lawrence doesn't read my posts. But if he did, maybe he could explain why the laws of physics prevent me from building such a wormhole.
report post as inappropriate
Steev Dufourny replied on Jul. 22, 2010 @ 18:04 GMT
Thanks, it's interesting.
Good luck in your researhs and works.
Regards
Steve
report post as inappropriate
Jason Wolfe replied on Jul. 22, 2010 @ 18:10 GMT
But do you understand what I did? OK, maybe wormholes that extend millions of light years require insane amounts of energy. However, in principle, I can build a wormhole that is a couple hundred meters long.
For it to be a real wormhole, does the acceleration at the mouth have to exceed the speed of light (like a black hole)?
When will the physics community talk about what IS possible?
report post as inappropriate
Dr. Cosmic Ray replied on Jul. 22, 2010 @ 18:16 GMT
Dear Jason,
An evil wormhole? You will need an ER and an underwear souvenir shop nearby, and a bunch of lawyers.
Dear Steve,
Are Florida women beautiful? I don't know your taste in women, and I am admittedly biased, but YES!
Have Fun!
report post as inappropriate
Jason Wolfe replied on Jul. 22, 2010 @ 18:52 GMT
Dear Dr. Ray,
OK, I was making a joke. But do you get my point? It might be possible to build a wormhole. It would have to be very short because of energy costs. I have yet to see any PhD's in General Relativity to contradict me. They don't seem to be responsive to either logic or rudeness. Ok, maybe the rude comments are not helping. But still, physicists who think that wormholes cannot exist are full of it.
I Double Dog Dare anybody in the physics community to challenge me on this point! My point is that wormholes CAN exist. They have to be little ones; and No Time Travel.
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Jul. 23, 2010 @ 09:49 GMT
Hi Ray ,
I took the airplane,I am on the beach with a girl , at the sphere beach, I try the surf.
Steve
report post as inappropriate
hide replies