Can One Travel Without Actually Travelling

[renormalised (Carl)]

Originally Posted by Nesti

If you go back to the question and think negative divergence as within GR.

Are strings consuming energy in the recording process?! (Rhetorical) If so, what would be the affects, more importantly, what would we observe?

I'll have to do a bit of reading on this.

If strings are consuming energy, then in order to conserve that energy (in accordance with Thermodynamics) it must either be re-radiated or converted to a change in the vibration of the strings...a change in frequency and/or wavelength. That may mean a change in state of a particle that string defines or a change in the particle type that string represents, which would be analogous to the decay of a particle from one type to another.

Just had a thought go click...how might this connect to "dark matter", if it exists?

[Nesti (Mark)]

Originally Posted by renormalised

I'll have to do a bit of reading on this.

If strings are consuming energy, then in order to conserve that energy (in accordance with Thermodynamics) it must either be re-radiated or converted to a change in the vibration of the strings...a change in frequency and/or wavelength. That may mean a change in state of a particle that string defines or a change in the particle type that string represents, which would be analogous to the decay of a particle from one type to another.

Just had a thought go click...how might this connect to "dark matter", if it exists?

I feel that it is only possible to express a force if the correct frequency is stored. So no matter how much energy a string takes on, if only a certain amount of stored energy is held for a frequency associated with the graviton, then its mass will be equal to that portion. So stored energy is latent and not potential, as well as regulated by quantization.

BTW, my question relates to: is gravitation (GR) merely the negative divergence of spacetime due to the consumption of energy of strings. And since strings are modulated across the entire continuum - via Calabi-Yaus - then gravitation can be expressed uniformly, same as charge, isospin, mass etc for each specie (each specific frequency). So even though strings are taking-on energy, they are not increasing mass. Is that wild enough?

Dark matter, simply a frequency which is not possessed by matter which we observe. Nothing special at all really.

Dark energy, the release of energy - so opposite to absorbtion - from strings into spacetime. This could be used to 'push' the universe's frontiers while relaxing the continuum tension, ergo assisting in the expansion process, or better yet, an internal regulator for balancing the expansion rate of the universe.

[sjastro]

Its most unbecoming to try and misrepresent what I’m saying by labelling it “conspiracy theory”. I don’t think that scientists conspire with each other to promote an established view. Rather I think what happens is that those who’ve worked in a field for a time (and I’m not just talking about scientists) have a tendency to become very impressed with themselves and what they know (and not sufficiently impressed with what they don’t know) and consequently become unduly resistant to new ideas, especially if they adjudge the proponents of those new ideas to be mere interlopers.

"Yes we know all about the paradoxes and the particle accelerators that "demonstrate" conclusively that its "impossible". You know, the establishment in the science community has been talking like this for centuries and quite frankly its always gotten in the way of good science."

"No it does nothing of the kind. It just repeats the old "we know best" line. It brings me in mind of what poor old Faraday must have gone through. "

Unless you can support these claims (particularly that the science community operates on a hierarchical basis instead of debate and consensus through peer review) then I cannot interpret it in any other way.

Your revised remark is no better then the first. I don’t think science or the scientific method would ever discourage the contemplation of alternative theories regardless of what earlier observations or experimentation may say. That’s why the book is never closed, even on such respected theories as Evolution and Relativity.

The prompt for alternative theories is through experimentation and observation. In the context of Carl's comments there is no obvious reason to theorize why the speed of light in a vacuum is not the upper limit given that experiment and observation over 300 years have shown otherwise.

Steven

[renormalised (Carl)]

Originally Posted by Nesti

I feel that it is only possible to express a force if the correct frequency is stored. So no matter how much energy a string takes on, if only a certain amount of stored energy is held for a frequency associated with the graviton, then its mass will be equal to that portion. So stored energy is latent and not potential, as well as regulated by quantization.

BTW, my question relates to: is gravitation (GR) merely the negative divergence of spacetime due to the consumption of energy of strings. And since strings are modulated across the entire continuum, then gravitation is expressed uniformly, same as charge, isospin, mass etc for each specie (each specific frequency). So even though strings are taking-on energy, they are not increasing mass. Is that wild enough?

Dark matter, simply a frequency which is not possessed by matter which we observe. Nothing special at all really.

Dark energy, the release of energy - so opposite to absorbtion - from strings into spacetime. This could be used to 'push' the universes frontiers, ergo assisting in the expansion, or better yet, an internal regulator for balancing the expansion rate of the universe.

If we assume that the Higgs Field/Boson exists, then the only way a string may gain mass is to act as that field or to interact with it. It would have to vibrate at the correct frequency for a Higgs or act as the field from which the Higgs emerged. Gravitons, like photons, have zero mass, so they don't (apparently) interact with the (probable) Higgs Field.

Dark matter....that's where I was heading (in terms of frequency).

[sjastro]

Originally Posted by Nesti

We actually have this in aerospace engineering, it's called an 'Independent' , whereby an independent entity, who is broadly educated, and looks upon ALL the information to find merit and/or fault. What does science have at the moment, peer review...that could be seen as the proverbial 'Fox guarding the hen-house'.

Steven, seriously mate, you have to admit that there is a biased pro-science viewpoint associated with peer review?!

Where's the independence? Should there be another, higher, level of review?

Mark,

Of course it's pro science why shouldn't it be.

The whole point of peer review is bring about scientific debate and hopefully consensus.

Consensus can be very slow. It took 50 years of debate and research before continental drift was finally accepted by geologists.

Steven

[renormalised (Carl)]

The prompt for alternative theories is through experimentation and observation. In the context of Carl's comments there is no obvious reason to theorize why the speed of light in a vacuum is not the upper limit given that experiment and observation over 300 years have shown otherwise.

For the most part that is correct (prompts for alternative theories), however a hypothesis doesn't necessarily need an experimentation or observation. We have no way of knowing whether such things as hyperspace/subspace or other similar higher (or lower) dimensional states might exist unless we do the experiments and make the observations. There maybe things we have observed with what we think we know about the nature of spacetime that we may have gotten incorrect in our interpretations. There are quite a few observations which have stumped us and we don't know the answers for. Maybe the answers lie outside of what we might consider as being "orthodox physics".

In any case, much of what was once "heresy" invariably becomes "orthodoxy", when we sit down and do a bit of thinking.

[Nesti (Mark)]

Originally Posted by sjastro

Mark,

The whole point of peer review is bring about scientific debate and hopefully consensus.

Steven

Steven, I totally agree with you, I'm not saying that you are wrong, I'm saying what you are pointing out is in fact imbalanced. You've said it right here "about scientific debate ", true, and there's no external input here; there's no non-science input to governance. Science is overseeing science, and that's the whole problem. We have scientists making decisions about what should or should not be pursued, or worse yet, making decisions which affect the world on a socioeconomic level.

I personally might object to something that I'm not invited to know about, or deliberately excluded from.

At some point I might not like the idea that somebody who doesn't perhaps share the same holistic picture as I do, making decisions which may affect the world in which we all have equal rights to. Many scientist look upon the public as non-academic individual whom need guidance. Perhaps I might feel scientists are the ones whom need the guidance, as they're the ones who need to 'Unplug' once in a while. Also, I might object to 1 Tesla running through a 17km circle 5mm wide on a planet which I inhabit...so might many more people.

[renormalised (Carl)]

Originally Posted by sjastro

Mark,

Of course it's pro science why shouldn't it be.

The whole point of peer review is bring about scientific debate and hopefully consensus.

Consensus can be very slow. It took 50 years of debate and research before continental drift was finally accepted by geologists.

Steven

How true...however in the case of continental drift it was a matter of a non geologist's ideas being disregarded by geologists simply on political grounds. His ideas didn't fit in with the accepted paradigm and because he was an outsider, that made his ideas even more heretical than they otherwise would have been. Even though the answers were staring straight at them in the face, it took all that time for geologists (mind you, fresh minds to the problem, not so much the entrenched view) to figure out that he was right in the first place. They had to go out and do the exploration work and experiments to see what was correct. Even then, it was hard for the orthodoxy to come to terms with the new paradigm. Now it's an accepted fact within the geological community in particular and the scientific community in general. Much the same as evolution, even though (in both cases) we still have a lot to learn.

The ideal of peer review is to bring about debate and consensus, but all too often it's one entrenched view and its adherents being insufferably staid and doing its utmost to prevent new ideas from gaining acceptance.

[Nesti (Mark)]

Peer review has been talked about before, not just by us.


I by no means expect to convince experienced naturalists whose minds are stocked with a multitude of facts all viewed, during a long course of years, from a point of view directly opposite to mine. But I look with confidence to the future to young and rising naturalists, who will be able to view both sides of the question with impartiality.
Charles Darwin


A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.
Max Planck, 1920

[TrevorW]

I thought I read or heard somewhere that the universe is expanding away from us faster than the speed of light

??????

[sjastro]

Originally Posted by TrevorW

I thought I read or heard somewhere that the universe is expanding away from us faster than the speed of light

??????

Space-time can expand faster than light. The early history of Universe required the Universe to expand faster than light to preserve causality (the horizon effect).

Objects moving faster than light in space however is not possible.

Steven

[sjastro]

Originally Posted by renormalised

For the most part that is correct (prompts for alternative theories), however a hypothesis doesn't necessarily need an experimentation or observation. We have no way of knowing whether such things as hyperspace/subspace or other similar higher (or lower) dimensional states might exist unless we do the experiments and make the observations. There maybe things we have observed with what we think we know about the nature of spacetime that we may have gotten incorrect in our interpretations. There are quite a few observations which have stumped us and we don't know the answers for. Maybe the answers lie outside of what we might consider as being "orthodox physics".

In any case, much of what was once "heresy" invariably becomes "orthodoxy", when we sit down and do a bit of thinking.

Carl,

I'm still curious as to why the speed of light as being the max. limit is being brought into question. What is the prompt in this case?

Steven

[sjastro]

Originally Posted by Nesti

Steven, I totally agree with you, I'm not saying that you are wrong, I'm saying what you are pointing out is in fact imbalanced. You've said it right here "about scientific debate ", true, and there's no external input here; there's no non-science input to governance. Science is overseeing science, and that's the whole problem. We have scientists making decisions about what should or should not be pursued, or worse yet, making decisions which affect the world on a socioeconomic level.

I personally might object to something that I'm not invited to know about, or deliberately excluded from.

At some point I might not like the idea that somebody who doesn't perhaps share the same holistic picture as I do, making decisions which may affect the world in which we all have equal rights to. Many scientist look upon the public as non-academic individual whom need guidance. Perhaps I might feel scientists are the ones whom need the guidance, as they're the ones who need to 'Unplug' once in a while. Also, I might object to 1 Tesla running through a 17km circle 5mm wide on a planet which I inhabit...so might many more people.

Mark,

Politicians built the LHC, scientists only lobbied the politicians.

In regards to pure science which is not subject to political, economic, technological influences etc, I have absolutely no problem in science overseeing science with regards to peer review. I would rather have experts review my work, instead of non specialists or worse still non scientists.

Steven

[renormalised (Carl)]

Originally Posted by sjastro

Carl,

I'm still curious as to why the speed of light as being the max. limit is being brought into question. What is the prompt in this case?

Steven

It's not, at least not using the usual methods and trying to accelerate to c in normal space. What I am saying is what if there are aspects of the universe we're either not aware of yet, or that something which we have postulated (i.e. hyperspace, etc) might be the answer to traveling faster. As you're aware of, there are methods we do know of which don't violate SR which will allow us to travel faster, however there are objections to those methods which are based on conjecture which they haven't tested yet.

All I'm saying is that they should test these things via experimentation before dismissing the proposals out of hand. They may not be testable now, but at some time in the future we may have the technology and energy generating requirements to test them. So instead of saying it's impossible, it would be better to withhold judgment until we're able to make a fully informed opinion.

[FredSnerd (Claude)]

Originally Posted by renormalised

It's not, at least not using the usual methods and trying to accelerate to c in normal space. What I am saying is what if there are aspects of the universe we're either not aware of yet, or that something which we have postulated (i.e. hyperspace, etc) might be the answer to traveling faster. As you're aware of, there are methods we do know of which don't violate SR which will allow us to travel faster, however there are objections to those methods which are based on conjecture which they haven't tested yet.

All I'm saying is that they should test these things via experimentation before dismissing the proposals out of hand. They may not be testable now, but at some time in the future we may have the technology and energy generating requirements to test them. So instead of saying it's impossible, it would be better to withhold judgment until we're able to make a fully informed opinion.

Carl,

Couldnt agree with you more. To say, based on our current state of knowledge that its impossible is frankly just absurdly foolish and unscientific.

[Nesti (Mark)]

If you want some more light shed on what I was alluding to when I was referring to the difference between conscious and consciousness, ie, particle states and values, versus , those states and values working in with other states and values (respectively). What is innately known (conscious), versus, what requires interaction to form (consciousness). Just watch the last half of the first clip, and all of the second and third clips.

Hope you find it interesting that conscious knows the decisions that consciousness will make 6 seconds later!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wnm4T...eature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OvacN...eature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wYSyt...eature=related

[sjastro]

Originally Posted by renormalised

It's not, at least not using the usual methods and trying to accelerate to c in normal space. What I am saying is what if there are aspects of the universe we're either not aware of yet, or that something which we have postulated (i.e. hyperspace, etc) might be the answer to traveling faster. As you're aware of, there are methods we do know of which don't violate SR which will allow us to travel faster, however there are objections to those methods which are based on conjecture which they haven't tested yet.

Carl as you know we don't live in a Universe where we all travel faster than light,where the speed of light is the lower limit and mass takes on an imaginary value. So we can discount that option....

With regards to "hyperspace" let's put that in the right perspective as well. While there are people out there who suggest that faster than light travel is possible through String theory, energy conditions are violated in GR. So we can discount that one as well. On top of that you know my opinion of String Theory.

All I'm saying is that they should test these things via experimentation before dismissing the proposals out of hand. They may not be testable now, but at some time in the future we may have the technology and energy generating requirements to test them. So instead of saying it's impossible, it would be better to withhold judgment until we're able to make a fully informed opinion.

Our judgment is based on what is happening now. Not tomorrow, next week, 10 years from now, or 20000 years from now. That is how science operates. As it is stands now, the speed of light in a vacuum is the upper limit. Scientists are satisfied with SR, the observations and the experiments.

To argue to withhold judgment until we have a fully informed opinion, one needs to consider the logic.

(a) It assumes our current level of understanding on the speed of light is deficient.
(b) It assumes someone in the future is going to come up with a better idea, experiment or observation.

and most importantly

(c) When is a fully informed opinion decided? (eg is the new value a limit or can we go faster?)
If (a) is an ongoing event it implies we will never reach point (c).

That's the trouble when you don't have a crystal ball. Everything is based on assumptions.

Regards

Steven

[FredSnerd (Claude)]

Originally Posted by sjastro

To argue to withhold judgment until we have a fully informed opinion, one needs to consider the logic.

(a) It assumes our current level of understanding on the speed of light is deficient.
(b) It assumes someone in the future is going to come up with a better idea, experiment or observation.

and most importantly

(c) When is a fully informed opinion decided? (eg is the new value a limit or can we go faster?)
If (a) is an ongoing event it implies we will never reach point (c).

That's the trouble when you don't have a crystal ball. Everything is based on assumptions.

Regards

Steven

Steven

I don’t believe anyone here is (a) “assuming” that our current level of understanding on the speed of light is deficient. We are “allowing for the possibility” that our current level of understanding is deficient. There is a world of difference. We aren’t (b) “assuming” that someone in the future is going to come up with a better idea, experiment or observation. We are allowing for the possibility that someone will; And as for (c) when is a fully informed opinion decided? Well you know, maybe there is no such thing as certain. Evolution is perhaps the most respected scientific theory ever but I don’t think anyone says that it is certain. It is constantly subjected to challenge and so it should be. Newtons notions of gravity were the bible until Eisenstein came along. That’s true science in my opinion.



Regards


Claude

[renormalised (Carl)]

Originally Posted by sjastro

Carl as you know we don't live in a Universe where we all travel faster than light,where the speed of light is the lower limit and mass takes on an imaginary value. So we can discount that option....

With regards to "hyperspace" let's put that in the right perspective as well. While there are people out there who suggest that faster than light travel is possible through String theory, energy conditions are violated in GR. So we can discount that one as well. On top of that you know my opinion of String Theory.

Our judgment is based on what is happening now. Not tomorrow, next week, 10 years from now, or 20000 years from now. That is how science operates. As it is stands now, the speed of light in a vacuum is the upper limit. Scientists are satisfied with SR, the observations and the experiments.

To argue to withhold judgment until we have a fully informed opinion, one needs to consider the logic.

(a) It assumes our current level of understanding on the speed of light is deficient.
(b) It assumes someone in the future is going to come up with a better idea, experiment or observation.

and most importantly

(c) When is a fully informed opinion decided? (eg is the new value a limit or can we go faster?)
If (a) is an ongoing event it implies we will never reach point (c).

That's the trouble when you don't have a crystal ball. Everything is based on assumptions.

Regards

Steven

I'm not talking about the superluminal solutions to SR, Steven, I'm talking about solutions like the Alcubierre Metric etc.

You talked about discounting this and that (sure you're not in the retail business) just because it violates what we know of physics now. If that held for all physics (or anything else), we wouldn't be where we are now. Remember, right up until the 30's and 40's, they thought it was impossible to break free of the planet's gravitational pull because it would take too much energy. Very many prominent scientists thought that. Lord Rutherford said it was going to be impossible to harness the energy in an atomic nucleus...they'd never split the atom. You couldn't travel faster than the speed of sound because you'd hit a "brick wall" that would destroy your aircraft etc etc. I could go on for a long time about scientific truths that were rock solid, that turned out to be wrong.

Science is about making assumptions. If you don't assume something then you have no hypothesis to test. Your assumption maybe wrong, or it maybe right. In the case of SR and GR, with our current state of knowledge we believe them to be rock solid (for the most part). But that's not to say that they'll not be modified in the future, or that maybe something else may come along to replace them. Newton thought his theory was rock solid. So did most other scientists for 250 years. But Einstein comes along and changes things with Relativity.

You're assuming (or at least implying) that Relativity is going to be the definitive answer, ad infinitum. The logic of that is faulty as well. That implies 3 things...1) That the logic on which it is based is flawless, 2)That no other theory will be derived that will challenge it, and, 3)That no experiment or observation has or will be made that will contradict the premise of the theories. Just as you have implied I am crystal ball gazing, so are you in this instance

Science is not about the here and now, Steven. Science is about the "what if", "what can be or could be", "what might be". If science just dealt with what it knows and never considered the infinite possibilities (wrong or otherwise), we'd have never left the safety of the caves (if they were ever that safe in the first place!!). We'd have never landed a person on the Moon, no probes would've visited any planets, we wouldn't have flown in the first place, we'd have no atomic energy, you wouldn't be able to take your astropiccies, I wouldn't be typing this out on a computer keyboard etc etc.

Yes, our judgment is based on what we know of things at present, I agree with you on this. Yes, the efficacy of SR and GR have been satisfied through experimentation and observation. However, in saying "as it stands, now", you know yourself that at some future stage it may not have the standing it holds at present. Or, it may still have...we just don't know.

Funny thing here Steven, neither of us will probably totally agree with the others' arguments simply because we think differently...you're the orthodox literalist and I'm the radical. You like your boxes, I get claustrophobic

Agree to disagree

[avandonk]

Originally Posted by Nesti

If I may describe what I have observed.

There is a trend which is growing in numbers at a very high rate. 5 years ago, an alternative therapy clinic would be busy; today these same clinics are frantic.

My partner's clinic is booked out weeks in advance; my partner herself is booked out 6mths in advance. The only clients which jump the waiting list at terminally ill patients.

People are gravitating toward these new styles of old disciplines in increasing numbers. In fact, we are referred to by Oncology Departments when they have given up. In such a scenario, we regularly see patients which have been told they only have a few weeks or months to live...many years later, they are still coming for treatments and modern medicine (especially the practitioners who although they cannot explain any of it, are becoming accustom to the possibilities) is slowly looking this way. Even insurance companies are seeing the benefits and cost savings in alternative treatments.

Also what I have noticed is the patients themselves. Once upon-a-time they were all Mung-Beans, now we have doctors, lawyers, scientists, nurses, single mums and dads, you name it-we see it.

Another weird contradictory behavior I have notices is that modern medicine is restrictive in its acceptance of alternative thinking, yet is happy to make an exception to the rule as in the case of Placebo Effect. In fact, the Placebo Effect is widely used in drug testing. Then there's consciousness. Neuroscience hasn't a clue how it arises, yet when someone raises the possibility of it being in some way explainable is science terms, academia freak-out. I put double standard attitudes up there with other ridiculous double standards, like renormalization, and that egotistical twit who cannot see past his own self-importance, Sheldon Glashow.

The last is something which relates to this thread. I have noticed a progressive trend toward the spiritual, and a movement away from the scientific. Back in the 50's someone outwardly spiritual was a "Whacko", now they're "Alternative". This goes for the science too. Many people now feel that science is not offering them a better quality of life, many openly admit that while science offers us many technologies and advancements, we've never been sicker, unhappy and disenchanted with life in general. This of course doesn't rest solely with science: politics, modern societal mindset etc all must be looked at, but it seems that people are now attempting to connect again with their inner side.

What I have attempted to do within the book, is to describe in mostly science terms, an inner gut feeling, instinct, held by many, that there is a deep connection between science and spirituality.

As far as testability goes, if anyone wants evidence and observational agreements with what I have written, come along to the clinic and hang around for a few days and talk to people who have been so cut-n-dry at one time, and now just shake their heads in disbelief. We're going through the motions of attaining accreditation right now and wish to set-up a university. It's a long process, but it's worth it. One day we hope to be able to conduct research and analysis on different case studies, so that theories can be put together, based upon data (fact) and observational agreement.

There's an old saying, "there's no such thing as an atheist in a foxhole". We've seen hundreds of people who, when facing death, turn their backs on modern medicine and seek out an alternative, one which their gut instincts have told them to do...why is that?

Lastly, I'm pretty sure most people on this forum don't look at the stars, planets and galaxies to see the mathematics and science in action; they look because of the beauty...unless it's their job or they are making calculations. That goes for mathematics and science itself; people see the beauty in the field of study/enquiry.

At the end of the day, whether anyone here likes it or not, the world is changing. Before too long, whether people like Glashow like it or not, you will see science probing more than just particles. And why? Because people are slowly learning to turning inward…where real understanding comes from and the increasing realisation that maybe there's more out there than what we can experimentally observe.

The only way to really test what you claim in the obove vague farrago of assertions is a double blind test.

All quacks ignore their failures and only quote their successes even if they are due to a placebo affect. It is no good hiding behind the term 'spiritual' as this is beyond science to probe as it is a fiction in the mind of the deluded.

The simple statement that there is more out there than we can experimentally observe puts you fully in the mindset of self delusional ignorant twits.

Science is not about proving anything. Far from it. It is about disproving any conjecture by experiment.

Collecting 'evidence' to formulate an hypothesis is science.
Collecting 'evidence' to prove any hypothesis is not science.
One experiment can disprove a seemingly valid hypothesis.

Turning inwards for so called answers is a total cop out. By contemplating my navel I can get enlightenment? I would rather contemplate what has been slowly extracted from our reality by very many smarter people than myself.

It is good that people ask questions but do not let your own ignorance lead you astray because the reality is too difficult to even start to comprehend.

Bert