What are you talking about? So far all you've done is mentally masturbated with definitions that you have absolutely incorrect. The second sentence in the abstract admits possible similarities between the centers of ordinary stars and neutron stars: With kind regards, Oliver K.
That is also the conclusion of our new paper in print, "Neutron Repulsion: Here's what wikipedia had to say: Apeiron uses a peer review system involving internationally established researchers, most of whom, however, cannot be regarded as mainstream. Apeiron has become a forum for "dissident" researchers and opinions not accepted by the conventional system. Why doesn't that surprise me? Why didn't you publish your paper in, say, Physical Review Letters? Really Ethelred, it seems you got what I was saying wrong. When I was referring to the "Infinite Universe" I wasn't just referring to our universe but the entire String Theory Landscape of all possible universes.
Call it the Omniverse if you will. In this Omniverse, universes of different numbered dimensions are possible. And if you think this is "unprovable" you're wrong; evidence of other universes is attainable through analysis of the CMBR, which we shall have when the work of the Planck Satellite is complete.
Physicists with far higher levels of education than you or I have confidence in that. I will also refer you to Linde and Poplawski, the one who believes that creation of universes is possible within others for example using a particle accelerator and the latter who conjectured that our universe exists inside a black hole inside a larger universe. Common sense might make you think that the expansion of the universe would overtake the universe it exists within, but this isnt so. Since the inner universe expands into its own space-time and not the one of the larger universe, this does not occur.
It seems like a far-fetched possibility, but if they want to investigate it's their prerogative. One day in the far flung future we might actually be able to make use of this technology. A mere century ago, who would have believed in quantum entanglement, teleportation or tunneling? And now we've actually managed to teleport matter across ten miles of empty space! New Scientist And then there is Brian Greene, who in The Fabric of the Cosmos stated that he doesn't think space and time are fundamental but the result of processes that occur at the subplanck level.
Oliver, there actually are quite a few differences between ordinary stars and neutron stars-- too many to fully convey in a short comment. But neutron stars are actually the closest thing we have to black holes without actually being one. As such, the density is so great that the electrons collapse into the nucleus and combine with the protons to produce neutrons. Thus gravity overcomes the EM force. This might actually be the "perfect fluid" mentioned in the above article. I find this interesting because since neutron stars are the closest thing we have to black holes, and much easier to observe and examine and black holes-- specifically Kerr Black Holes which spin-- might house traversable worm holes and other universes-- I said MIGHT then it's research worth exploring.
Besides superfluids, the other item of interest was their mention of a high energy cosmic ray signature. Over the past couple of months data has been coming in of a highly anomalous very high energy gamma ray emission coming from the Crab Nebula neutron star region.
Like I said, it's a possibility worth exploring. One other point, in regards to the idea of wormholes within stellar cores, one might look for synchronized nova bursts or emissions, since in the highly unlikely case this turns out to be possible, this would represent a macro version of quantum entanglement note the above connection between these various phenomena provided by gauge-gravity duality.
Ha, I expected that kind of response from you because since you can't make any important contributions on your own, you seek to tear others down. I eat people like you for breakfast on a daily basis. A fortran programmer huh? What are you, 80 years old? Or is that merely the age of the technology you work with? Maybe you need to let go of old ideas and learn some new ones-- or is it true what they say about people like you? You really can't teach an old dog new tricks And I doubt you understand the meaning of any of those "buzz" words and if I had the time, I would educate you.
However, I don't make it a habit to try and educate those who work with an archaic computer programming language. Upgrade your hardware and software first and then we'll work on your brainware: Wrong, Im actually writing my own book. I don't think you understand what you are dealing with, but I would expect nothing less of a senile 80 year old fortran programmer. I could say the same for all you hacks who rate people 1's without having the IQ to do your own research or write your own book but see I dont care about that -- seems like you guys hang out online rather than do any productive work on your own.
Perhaps when you're smart enough to be rated above the Can't say I'm surprised, but I do pity your pathetic lives: That was good for a few laughs. It's only a prepress clearinghouse anyway. You agree with MOND? I can't believe that-- although it fits some of the data, dark matter fits MUCH more. Sorry frajo, I meant to give you a 5. There is no need to quote someone who has nothing useful to offer, therefore I'm certainly not going to oblige someone who isn't worth the effort.
I'm not trying to impress since I doubt your lower IQ can actually handle any real knowledge; what they say about old dogs is true No, it was actually your incompetence that led to that. I was talking about you working with an archaic computer language and you posted a link, so I assumed you meant that was your own work which was "published" there, meaning you did something outside of computer programming.
As far as the differences between MOND and MOG, that's off topic in any case, because either way, neither explains the data as well as dark matter theory. Let's see, establishing false but unfalsifiable pedigree, check. Useless and irrelevant ad hominem production based on profile cues, check. Use of the term "quantum foam" without a full grasp of the mathematical implications, check.
Mismash of incongruent theories, check. You're an undergrad with a really high sense of self esteem. Probably an American, or perhaps Canadian, might be a University drop out, but if not completely withdrawn, not doing well. So did you crack, or are cracking? Ha wrong on all counts-- actually working on my Masters degree right now. Actually string theory isn't unfalsiable if you look at the recent research and how it's proven successful in various areas of physics. Or would you actually pit yourself against a Rhodes Scholar Brian Greene and various other highly decorated physicists?
Seems like you're the one who isn't as smart as he thinks. The funny thing is NONE of you have done any research in this area therefore not only do you not have a right to criticize, you don't even have the right to have an opinion. Maybe if you had something useful going on in your lives, you would be much happier.
It doesn't affect me, because I'm pretty sure I will outdo all of you combined. I'm the one who's going to have a masters and then a doctorate in physics and publish a book while the rest of you are still clinging to old scientific concepts that were valid over a century ago. Sad, pitiful and pathetic. It's funny to see you guys fighting like vultures. Because while you fight over little tidbits and scraps, you're missing the big picture. But thanks for the great laugh. You can go back to your pathetic little lives while I make my mark in academia.
Hey, look at it this way, talking to me will be the high point of your sorry little lives. You'll have nothing else, but at least you'll have that. Nah, I just enjoy putting the little dogs down: Quite entertaining on my day off. I don't give a damn about anyone on here nor do I need to. I had him pegged from the start. Well, maybe not the total idiot he's revealed himself to be I read science fiction and I don't confuse dimensions and Universes. YOU should read some science fiction. If you want hardcore Hard Science fiction the standard is still Hal Clement's Mission of Gravity, if you can find a copy.
Even Fantasy can be of the Hard variety. The key is consistency of the rules. The Enchanter Stories of L. Sprague de Camp and Fletcher Pratt where the much of the magic is based on the concepts of contagion and similarity which came from an anthropologist who worked that out from the way much of tribal magic is supposed to work.
The hilarious thing is you guys were having a nice little childish fight before I ever started. I guess the truth hurts, doesn't it? You'll be doing this for years, while others make their mark in science. By your very vocabulary you reveal yourselves to be pretenders. Sorry guys, I don't give a damn about popularity and your gene pools will be gone long before mine is-- natural selection ; I've been watching you guys "fight" with amusement for a long time, now I decided to give you a taste of your own medicine.
And the fact that some of you don't even know what dimensions are is just LOL-- how are you ever going to expect to understand string theory? Do you even know what a cartesian coordinate system is? This is basic primary elementary school stuff. I was interested in astronomy from the age of 8 and I knew more stuff then than most of you know now. This is cut down because it isn't worth the time it takes to post that many parts for someone that seems destined to act badly towards any disagreement. I understood what you SAID. I don't read minds. Are sure you are ready to write a book?
The usual term is Multi-Verse or variants thereof. IF you had said that you would have been saying what you thought you were saying. Clarity is needed to convey an intended meaning. BUT that wasn't what you said originally and neither Frajo nor I are obligated to read your mind. And if you think this is "unprovable" you're wrong; At the moment it IS unprovable. I often joke that our universe is nothing more than a big cloud of flatulance. That, ironically, explains the Big Bang, the rapid and accelerated expansion, and the Big Rip very clearly. I think it unlikely because I see no need for it to exist.
Others are certain there will be a Quantum Gravity theory. That seems to go against the way gravity works in GR so again I think that is unlikely. Again that is unlikely to leave traces through a BB event. So far that one is wrong. We live a Universe that appears open and thus is not a Black Hole. Common sense might make you think that the expansion of the universe would overtake the universe it exists within, but this isn't so. Depends entirely on the containing Universe. This stuff isn't new to me. That probably doesn't work.
The Universes should no longer be in container-contained relationship under those circumstances. Did you see ME say they shouldn't? Frankly I think they were just spitwadding. Nothing abnormal for physicists. And without you rather nasty later posts. You respond very badly to disagreement of any kind. QTE is overrated so far. Q Teleportation is just a transfer of the state of matter and not actual teleportation of matter. Q tunneling is very real and a consequence of Uncertainty. To use Star Trek as an example, as others have already done. Teleportation of matter is what they do in that series.
What was done in that experiment was to scan Dr. McCoy on matter already in the target zone while turning the original into a puddle of quantum goo. Rather a bit more disturbing that the TV series has it where only Dr. McCoy is bothered by it. Maybe since it still has a 4D space-time total. Holographic universes have disconnected things effected each other as they were next to each other when they are not.
Thus it has a causality violation and I see that as a logical failure. Sounds like hidden variables all over again. I don't think there is a subplanck level. I really think there is minimum granularity to the Universe and the Planck level seems to be the size of it. Let me know when the math problems in String Hypothesis are fixed. Then it will be a theory. Thirty years now and it still isn't done. And that is extent of your rational posts and even there you blamed me for your poor quality of writing. After that you went toxic. Yay, you're the only one who displays educated responses instead of nonthinking putdowns so I will respond in kind.
I agree that the teleportation method they used was destructive, but I was just saying that these ideas were unheard of a century ago. What's your opinion on quantum behavior in biological organisms such as what birds use to navigate, plant photosynthesis, etc. Also what's your opinion on Aharanov's retrocausation?
I'm not saying I advocate any of these, but I'm wondering what you think about this, particularly post selection. BTW I wasn't trying to respond badly to disagreement notice the first few posts of mine werent nasty , I just acted that way when people started putting out snide remarks without bothering to explain their position.
And not that this matters to you, but I'm giving you all 5s on your posts because you actually took the trouble to explain your positions in a very detailed and thoughtful manner. Sorry, about not mentioning multiverse earlier, but I had a specific reason for that. I believe that word gets overused and people get confused by what is meant-- more people think that refers to MWI than String Theory Landscape.
We could go by Tegmark's definitions as he charted the structure out pretty well. Someone attempting to attain a Master's degree would most likely have reading skills capable enough of determining context and understanding what is being said to them. Let's see, establishing false but unfalsifiable pedigree, check But you didn't. You ran off into stating that String Theory is falsifiable, which wasn't my claim in the first place.
The funny thing is NONE of you have done any research in this area Actually, you've very much incorrect in this statment, troll. The difference between ordinary stars - like the Sun - and neutron stars is explained in the abstract of the paper: The neutron star at the core of ordinary stars - like the Sun - is obscured from view by waste products that accumulate in the photosphere. Neutron repulsion is like the hot filament in an incandescent light bulb.
Excited neutrons are emitted from the solar core and decay into hydrogen that glows in the photosphere like a frosted light bulb. Alex, Imagine a gaggle of demented, limping altar boys chained at the neck connected to a towering shrine that reads: All That Is Known That Will Ever Be Known, and these slobbering altar boys snarl at passersby, goading each other to behave more grotesquely than the previous, and finally buggering each other to sleep.
I, for one, look forward to reading your book.
- Master Cleanse: The Ultimate Guide for the Detox Diet.
- Time Travel Via Wormhole Breaks the Rules of Quantum Mechanics - The Crux.
- Lîle au Trésor (French Edition).
Sounds like aether theorists. Thank you Alex Reynolds. Omniverse Scanner does sound better. Multiverse is another good one, but the word multiverse can take on a religious meaning in some circles and be confusing. Ethelred did have the right idea with the statement The usual term is Multi-Verse or variants thereof. Now you people can spank me with a bunch of 1 stars.
By the way, Mr. Reynolds, I read your 'rough drafts'. I'd strongly suggest you rethink attempting to publish this. Especially if you're going to attempt to create a framework in which you treat hypothetical concepts as though you know of their attributes in such a manner. For example, your second piece, 'Philosophy of Love' odd chapter to have in a physics book in which you attempt to describe the 'human soul' as a multidimensional extrapolation of human conciousness. By the way, the Jersey Shore style pics and the constant obsession with calling yourself "Superman Alex the Great" have done nothing to dissuade me from thinking you're a cracked up undergrad drop out.
Well,Im not a drop out, but let me clear up the rest of that. The piece youre referring to is not part of the collection, it's actually a philosophical paper based on Plato , I just put that in there as part of my blogs it has nothing to do with what Im writing. The ones which are part of the collection are 1,2,4,5,6,7,8 I think the third one is the one youre referring to, not the second one. In any case, it's still a rough draft that I'm working on, but thank you for your suggestions. My third point is that site isnt actually mine and those pictures arent mine see, Im being honest as a student I don't really have time for that, so a friend of mine lets me publicize my work on his sites.
When I have time I will make my own site from scratch. Thanks for the suggestions. I'm giving you a 5 because you actually bothered to read it. Then are you using his screen name or is he using yours? Next time be careful of who you attempt to troll. Im not trying to troll you. It goes both ways. I bet we each have far more knowledge than the other one gives us credit for. As for myself, I've been interested in astronomy since when I was 8, I knew all the chemical elements by heart, pi to 50 digits, all the constellations and all the presidents when I was in 7th grade-- not that memorization is any sign of intelligence lol.
Anyway, that's to illustrate that I love all the sciences-- not just physics, but chemistry, biology, astronomy, all of them. That was part of the problem actually. I didnt know what to major in because I wanted them all. Not that you care, but just showing that Im not some fly by night operation. I had a similar issue at the time of my schooling, hence why I decided to focus on the science of measurement and definition. Jenayah 13k 4 67 I vaguely remember a theory that, since it can prevent atmosphere from going through the gate, the Stargate can also detect changes in air pressure and shutdown when no one is moving towards it anymore This is addressed in one of the episode commentaries.
The wormhole looks at the show-script and if it says "[wormhole closes]", then the wormhole closes. Holding the gate open is part of the Stargate, not part of wormhole physics. The Stargate will not shutdown or transmit an object unless it has detected the entire object has passed the event horizon, or the 38 minutes run out. Actually, when things are going smoothly, they seem to have a lot of control. O'Neal orders them to "shut er down" on several occasions. The Earth gate was jury rigged, so it stands to reason that you could manually bypass a number of safeties, namely the one that prevented the disengagement of a wormhole while something was within the event horizon.
Scientists investigate the possibility of wormholes between stars
Radiation can go through in both directions but matter can only go one way. It's never really explained why. JoeWreschnig It's a safety feature of the Stargates, not a feature of wormhole physics - see stargate. Wormholes support travel in both directions by both matter and energy, but the event horizon would destroy matter either way. There are no instances of "rejecting" an incoming wormhole that I've ever seen.
How Fast Can We Go with Current Technology?
The only thing they could do was close the iris. This doesn't reject an incoming wormhole. I like the rest of your answer so I'm not giving a down vote. Pobrecita 6, 4 32 I can accept that when they come back from a planet with no technology, there is no radio waves that can keep the door open as soon as the last one pass the stargate But when they leave earth Sign up or log in Sign up using Google.
Sign up using Facebook.
Wormhole Images, Stock Photos & Vectors | Shutterstock
Sign up using Email and Password. You might have heard of solar sails before. They make use of either the pressure of solar wind, or the pressure of light particles to accelerate. How can light propel a spacecraft? Give that there is no or very little friction in space, a very small amount of pressure can propel an object. So, by using a huge sail and a laser or particle source in the home system, a sail spaceship can reach incredible speeds. Of course, that means that the sail must be absolutely massive, probably in excess of km at the very least, and it requires a laser with an unprecedented amount of power, probably beyond what humanity can muster at this point.
In the mid s, Miguel Alcubierre developed a theoretical way in which a spacecraft might conceivably travel faster than the speed of light without breaking any of the fundamental laws of physics. The concept is a solution that falls within the constraints of Albert Einstein's field equations. The basic idea is that you'd use negative mass, or antimatter , to 'warp' space around the spacecraft.
The idea would be to contract the space in front of the craft, and to expand it behind, effectively placing the spaceship inside a 'bubble'. By this method, the spaceship would never be travelling faster than the speed of light within the bubble, but it would be moving far faster relative to the outside world and observers.
Alcubierre theorized that this craft could achieve a relative speed of up to 10 times the speed of light using this method. There are considerable criticisms to this method of travel. While it's theoretically quite possible, it's fairly out of reach in practical terms. It requires a form of energy that we aren't sure how to harness, and it requires it in vast quantities. Initially, Alcubierre theorized that mass-energy equivalent to the planet Jupiter would be necessary! There are also concerns that Hawking radiation would be present at any point the spaceship started traveling faster than the speed of light, which would fry the occupants and destroy the ship.
In fact, they're not even sure that the ship operator would be able to communicate with the front of the ship to slow it down. In , NASA decided to pursue the concept of warping space to achieve faster than light speeds. This is headed by Harold White, and they will be focusing on warping space at the smallest scale to see if the theory holds. White and his team have also theorized that by changing the bubble into a 'doughnut shape', a great deal of energy requirement can be shaved off, meaning that far less exotic matter is needed to achieve a workable Alcubierre warp drive. In any event, the current experiments are aimed at determining feasibility, and it's unlikely that a working 'human sized' prototype will be ready any time soon.
Another theoretical possibility to travel faster than the speed of light without using a warp drive is making use of wormholes. Einstein theorized that space-time is curved, and because of that there could be 'shortcuts' from one area to another. Also known as an Einstein-Rosen bridge, a wormhole is a place where space is folded in upon itself to create a link between two points. It's tough to visualize impossible, actually , but imagine a piece of paper with two dots on it. You can travel from dot A to dot B, but if you fold the piece of paper properly, the two dots are virtually in the same place.
The kind of wormhole needed for our purposes would be called ' transversable wormholes ', because we'd need to travel through them in both directions. Current theory is pretty shaky, but it's possible wormholes existed naturally in the early universe. Again, general relativity is preserved because at no point would anything be traveling faster than the speed of light. Instead, space itself would be folded to shorten the travel by a significant amount. In order to hold open and maintain a wormhole, a shell of exotic matter would probably be required. Technologically, this shell would be extremely difficult to create and maintain, and it's probably some distance off in practical terms, if it's possible at all.
Developed by Serguei Krasnikov, the tube is theoretically possible but uses technology that we haven't yet achieved. Essentially, a 'wake' must be created by traveling close to the speed of light.
After traveling to a destination at close to superluminal speeds, a space-time distortion can be created, and you can travel back to the moment just after you departed. This is a highly theoretical concept, and it's pretty unlikely to be turned into a reality anytime soon. Now that you've learned that a warp drive is theoretically possible, you're probably wondering the same thing as I am: I'd estimate that we're still a long way from any sort of usable warp drive system in a starship. Consider that we're still not even sure what antimatter is, let alone how to contain it without blowing ourselves up.
I expect that the next century will see a huge explosion in space travel, and we'll start populating and mining nearby asteroids and planets. We might even see a few generational ships head for the stars, especially since our telescopes are getting better and we might start detecting a few Earth-like exoplanets any day now. I'm sure that if you told a man living in the year that we'd walk on the moon in 56 years, he'd scoff. I'm hoping to be similarly surprised! Sign in or sign up and post using a HubPages Network account. Comments are not for promoting your articles or other sites.
Juan Sanchez is correct in my opinion. It will take the intellectual resources of the entire planet for mankind to learn to travel in FTL mode. This is then a political issue that must be resolved. World unity with a democratic system that builds respect and acceptance of all of us for all of us must be our goal for now.
Sounds like Star Trek? Sure but in that world they had many millions of highly educated people with a spiritual maturity much more advanced than today's world. It would take the entire scientific resource of planet Earth to make FTL travel possible. And given mankind's geopolitical penchant for war to subjugate each other, I highly doubt that type of space travel will become a reality. Until we become true to be truly homo sapiens sapiens not just in name, but in deed, any of these fanciful day-dreaming will be just that, day-dreaming.
I'm not a cynic by nature, when I was a child, I dreamt of becoming an astronaut, and going to other worlds, like Mars. I even dreamt of going across the galactic seas, to other star systems, a meeting other sentient beings. Sixty years of life have taught me that it's a team effort. Until we learn to live in peace with each other here on this world, we will never be able to go among the stars, as I believe we were meant to. Good discussion of the possibilities for FTL travel. NASA's effort to determine if warping space is theoretically possible is particularly intriguing.
As a retired engineer I'm sure that if the physicists ever prove it can be done, the engineers will sooner or later get it done. It'll be just a matter of time and money.