550 lines
28 KiB
Plaintext
550 lines
28 KiB
Plaintext
Subject: Star Fleet Command Physics Notes 1
|
|
|
|
|
|
Memorandum for the record to physicists in 1993.
|
|
|
|
On the Super-Physics of Sub-Space Communication, Warp-Drive and Matter-
|
|
Teleporters.
|
|
|
|
Comments by Sarfatti enclosed by *...* - fantasize them as "telepatypes"
|
|
received by Sarfatti's creative unconscious mind in 1993 from Star Fleet
|
|
Command at the Presidio in San Francisco from not too far in our future.
|
|
|
|
>From hinson@physics.purdue.edu Sat Jan 23 07:44:58 1993
|
|
~Date: Sat, 23 Jan 93 10:46:37 -0500
|
|
~From: Jason W. Hinson <hinson@physics.purdue.edu>
|
|
~Subject: Re: Subspace communication for Star Fleet
|
|
~Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new
|
|
theories,sci.skeptic,alt.paranormal,alt.conspira
|
|
cy,alt.alien.visitors
|
|
Organization: Purdue University Physics Department
|
|
Cc:
|
|
|
|
>You wrote about how subspace communications travel faster than light.
|
|
|
|
* Do you mean "subspace communications travel faster than light" or
|
|
"subspace communications, travel (faster than light)". That is, we must
|
|
distinguish between subspace communication faster than light and travel
|
|
faster than light.
|
|
|
|
I will take the terms "subspace communication" and "quantum connection
|
|
communication" as meaning the same. In subspace communication information
|
|
(bits) is transferred "pre-metrically" across arbitrary spacetime intervals
|
|
between sender and receiver with no corresponding "travel" in the sense of
|
|
intermediary mass-energy.
|
|
|
|
Faster than light transport of mass-energy, not to be confused with
|
|
subspace communication can be of two kinds.
|
|
|
|
One is globally faster than light but locally slower than light (e.g.,
|
|
"Warp-drive" passage of a star ship in real time through a traversable worm
|
|
hole supported by exotic matter in imaginary time). The warp drive of the
|
|
U.S.S. Enterprise works by amplifying a quantum wormhole that surrounds the
|
|
ship.
|
|
|
|
The other mode of superluminal matter-transport teleportation of the "Beam
|
|
me up, Scotty!" variety is both globally and locally faster than light
|
|
either in real time (Lorentzian metric) or imaginary time (Euclidean metric
|
|
in Hawking's models of quantum gravity - idea is that the shadow universe
|
|
is in imaginary time. At least 90 % of total universe's mass is shadow
|
|
matter in imaginary time left over from the quantum gravity era in the
|
|
first 10^-43 seconds.)
|
|
|
|
The trick of "transporter" supertechnology is a phase transition from the
|
|
subluminal in real time to the transluminal in imaginary time and back
|
|
again preserving the informational patterns of quantum connectivity that
|
|
control the organization and function of matter including that of living
|
|
conscious matter.*
|
|
|
|
>I thought you might want to read a full blown analysis of the problems
|
|
with faster than light travel.
|
|
|
|
Note: this was written for the alt.arts.startrek.tech newsgroup.
|
|
|
|
*I have not been able to access that conference. What is the exact title?*
|
|
|
|
This article:
|
|
What is it about, and who should read it:
|
|
This is a detailed explanation about how relativity and that
|
|
wonderful science fictional invention of faster than light travel do not
|
|
seem to get along with each other.
|
|
|
|
*What do you mean by relativity? Relativity naturally divides into two
|
|
independent pieces: 1) the symmetry group structure (e.g. Lorentz ((local
|
|
light cones)) and translation groups for special relativity; Lorentz
|
|
tangent spacetime and diffeomorphism ((curved global spacetime)) groups for
|
|
classical general relativity) and 2) the retarded causality postulate that
|
|
causes are before effects in a frame-invariant sense. In field theory this
|
|
means that field operators across spacelike intervals (outside light cone)
|
|
commute leading to dispersion relations on scattering amplitudes - which
|
|
are violated in gamma-proton data according to Chas Bennett of Lawrence
|
|
Livermore in Phys. Rev A.).
|
|
|
|
The precise statement is that relativistic symmetry plus the principle of
|
|
retarded causality is incompatible with faster than light travel. I have no
|
|
argument with that. My claim is that relativistic symmetry is right for
|
|
classical spacetime geometry but retarded causality both mcro and macro is
|
|
wrong (incompatible with observations and experiments both present actual
|
|
and future). Indeed, the standard propagators of quantum electrodynamics
|
|
incolve both advanced and retarded causality although the propagator of a
|
|
massive subluminal particle decays exponentially on scale of Compton
|
|
wavelength outside the light cone while oscillating inside the light cone.
|
|
Note that in the limit of zero frame-invariant mass the Compton wavelength
|
|
is infinite - so what about the Feynman photon propagator in which virtual
|
|
spacelike photons of longitudinal and timelike polarization unite to create
|
|
the spacelike action of the electrical Coulomb force which is instantaneous
|
|
in the rest frame of the source charge and is spacelike in any frame in
|
|
which the charge is moving at uniform speed.*
|
|
|
|
>It begins with a simple introduction to the ideas of relativity. This
|
|
section includes some important information on space-time diagrams, so if
|
|
you are not familiar with them, I suggest you read it. Then I get into the
|
|
problems that relativity poses for faster than light travel. If you think
|
|
that there are many science fictional ways that we can get around these
|
|
problems, then you probably do not understand the "second problem" (which I
|
|
discuss in the third section) and I strongly recommend that you read it to
|
|
educate yourself. Finally, I introduce my idea (the only one I know of)
|
|
that, if nothing else, gets around this second problem in an interesting
|
|
way.
|
|
|
|
*You greatly under-estimate me. I feel like Cyrano De Bergerac in the duel
|
|
with the upstart who told him that his nose was too big!*
|
|
|
|
>The best way to read the article may be to make a hard copy. I
|
|
refer back a few times to a Diagram in the first section, and to have it
|
|
readily available would be nice.
|
|
|
|
*How condescending of you! But you do it so politely and elegantly that I
|
|
am amused. You would be a good kindergarten teacher - such patience is to
|
|
be admired. I think your exposition is basically useful for trekkies and
|
|
other sci fi addicts. That is why I include it here to post to other places
|
|
where it may be of educational value to the under-educated masses yearning
|
|
to know the secrets of time and existence.*
|
|
|
|
>I hope you can learn a little something from reading this, or at
|
|
least strengthen your understanding of that which you already know.
|
|
Your comments and criticisms are welcome, especially if they indicate
|
|
improvements that can be made for future posts.
|
|
And now, without further delay, here it is.
|
|
|
|
*Thank you, I, too, hope you learn something from my comments.*
|
|
|
|
A summary of conventional 2Oth Century spacetime Physics before the
|
|
breaking of the light barrier by Star Fleet Command.
|
|
|
|
|
|
> Relativity and FTL Travel
|
|
|
|
>Outline:
|
|
|
|
I. An Introduction to Special Relativity
|
|
A. Reasoning for its existence
|
|
B. Time dilation effects
|
|
C. Other effects on observers
|
|
E. Space-Time Diagrams
|
|
D. Experimental support for the theory
|
|
II. The First Problem: The Light Speed Barrier
|
|
A. Effects as one approaches the speed of light
|
|
B. Conceptual ideas around this problem
|
|
III. The Second Problem: FTL Implies The Violation of Causality
|
|
A. What is meant here by causality, and its importance
|
|
B. Why FTL travel of any kind implies violation of causality
|
|
C. A scenario as "proof"
|
|
IV. A Way Around the Second Problem
|
|
A. Warped space as a special frame of reference
|
|
B. How this solves the causality problem
|
|
C. The relativity problem this produces
|
|
D. One way around that relativity problem
|
|
V. Conclusion.
|
|
|
|
to be continued.
|
|
|
|
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
|
|
Path: moe.ksu.ksu.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!well!sarfatti
|
|
From: sarfatti@well.sf.ca.us (Jack Sarfatti)
|
|
Subject: Star Fleet Command Physics Notes 2
|
|
Message-ID: <C1EDyI.8A5@well.sf.ca.us>
|
|
Sender: news@well.sf.ca.us
|
|
Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link
|
|
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 06:56:42 GMT
|
|
Lines: 301
|
|
|
|
|
|
Part 2 The Hinson Notes on coventional relativity with Sarfatti Commentary
|
|
on superluminal and transluminal matter causality-violating kinematics.
|
|
|
|
> Relativity and FTL Travel
|
|
|
|
>Outline:
|
|
|
|
I. An Introduction to Special Relativity
|
|
A. Reasoning for its existence
|
|
B. Time dilation effects
|
|
C. Other effects on observers
|
|
E. Space-Time Diagrams
|
|
D. Experimental support for the theory
|
|
II. The First Problem: The Light Speed Barrier
|
|
A. Effects as one approaches the speed of light
|
|
B. Conceptual ideas around this problem
|
|
III. The Second Problem: FTL Implies The Violation of Causality
|
|
A. What is meant here by causality, and its importance
|
|
B. Why FTL travel of any kind implies violation of causality
|
|
C. A scenario as "proof"
|
|
IV. A Way Around the Second Problem
|
|
A. Warped space as a special frame of reference
|
|
B. How this solves the causality problem
|
|
C. The relativity problem this produces
|
|
D. One way around that relativity problem
|
|
V. Conclusion.
|
|
|
|
>I. An Introduction to Special Relativity
|
|
The main goal of this introduction is to make relativity and its
|
|
consequences feasible to those who have not seen them before. It should
|
|
also reinforce such ideas for those who are already somewhat familiar
|
|
with them. This introduction will not completely follow the traditional
|
|
way in which relativity came about. It will begin with a pre-Einstein
|
|
view of relativity. It will then give some reasoning for why Einstein's
|
|
view is plausible. This will lead to a discussion of some of the
|
|
consequences this theory has, odd as they may seem. For future
|
|
reference, it will also introduce the reader to the basics of space-time
|
|
diagrams. Finally, I want to mention some experimental evidence that
|
|
supports the theory.
|
|
|
|
>The idea of relativity was around in Newton's day, but it was
|
|
incomplete. It involved transforming from one frame of reference to
|
|
another frame which is moving with respect to the first. The
|
|
transformation was not completely correct, but it seemed so in the realm
|
|
of small speeds. I give here an example of this to make it clear.
|
|
|
|
>Consider two observers, you and me, for example. Lets say I am
|
|
on a train which passes you at 30 miles per hour. I through a ball in
|
|
the direction the train is moving, and the ball moves at 10 mph in MY
|
|
point of view. Now consider a mark on the train tracks. You see the
|
|
ball initially moving along at the same speed I am moving (the speed of
|
|
the train). Then I through the ball, and before I can reach the mark on
|
|
the track, the ball is able to reach it. So to you, the ball is moving
|
|
even faster than I (and the train). Obviously, it seems as if the speed
|
|
of the ball with respect to you is just the speed of the ball with
|
|
respect to me plus the speed of me with respect to you. So, the speed
|
|
of the ball with respect to you = 10 mph + 30 mph = 40 mph. This was
|
|
the first, simple idea for transforming velocities from one frame of
|
|
reference to another. In other words, this was part of the first concept
|
|
of relativity.
|
|
|
|
>Now I introduce you to an important postulate that leads to the
|
|
concept of relativity that we have today. I believe it will seem quite
|
|
reasonable. I state it as it appears in a physics book by Serway: "the
|
|
laws of physics are the same in every inertial frame of reference."
|
|
What it means is that if you observer any physical laws for a given
|
|
situation in your frame of reference, then an observer in a reference
|
|
frame moving with a constant velocity with respect to you should also
|
|
agree that those physical laws apply to that situation.
|
|
|
|
>As an example, consider the conservation of momentum. Say that
|
|
there are two balls coming straight at one another. They collide and go
|
|
off in opposite directions. Conservation of momentum says that if you
|
|
add up the total momentum (mass times velocity) before the collision and
|
|
after the collision, that the two should be identical. Now, let this
|
|
experiment be preformed on a train where the balls are moving along the
|
|
line of the train's motion. An outside observer would say that the
|
|
initial and final velocities of the balls are one thing, while an
|
|
observer on the train would say they were something different. However,
|
|
BOTH observers must agree that the total momentum is the same before and
|
|
after the collision. We should be able to apply this to any physical
|
|
law. If not, (i.e. if physical laws were different for different
|
|
frames of reference) then we could change the laws of physics just by
|
|
traveling in a particular reference frame.
|
|
|
|
>A very interesting result occurs when you apply this postulate
|
|
to the laws of electrodynamics. What one finds is that in order for the
|
|
laws of electrodynamics to be the same in all inertial reference frames,
|
|
it must be true that the speed of electromagnetic waves (such as light)
|
|
is the same for all inertial observers. Simply stating that may not
|
|
make you think that there is anything that interesting about it, but it
|
|
has amazing consequences. Consider letting a beam of light take the
|
|
place of the ball in the first example given in this introduction. If
|
|
the train is moving at half the velocity of light, wouldn't you expect
|
|
the light beam (which is traveling at the speed of light with respect to
|
|
the train) to look as if it is traveling one and a half that speed with
|
|
respect to an outside observer? Well this is not the case. The old
|
|
ideas of relativity in Newton's day do not apply here. What accounts
|
|
for this peculiarity is time dilation and length contraction.
|
|
|
|
>Here I give an example of how time dilation can help explain a
|
|
peculiarity that arises from the above concept. Again we consider a
|
|
train, but let's give it a speed of 0.6 c (where c = the speed of light
|
|
which is 3E8 m/s). An occupant of this train shines a beam of light so
|
|
that (to him) the beam goes straight up, hits a mirror at the top of the
|
|
train, and bounces back to the floor of the train where it is detected.
|
|
Now, in my point of view (outside of the train), that beam of light does
|
|
not travel straight up and straight down, but makes an up-side-down "V"
|
|
shape since the train is also moving. Here is a diagram of what I see:
|
|
|
|
|
|
/|\
|
|
/ | \
|
|
/ | \
|
|
light beam going up->/ | \<-light beam on return trip
|
|
/ | \
|
|
/ | \
|
|
/ | \
|
|
/ | \
|
|
---------|---------->trains motion (v = 0.6 c)
|
|
|
|
>Lets say that the trip up takes 10 seconds in my point of view. The
|
|
distance the train travels during that time is:
|
|
(0.6 * 3E8 m/s) * 10 s = 18E8 m.
|
|
The distance that the beam travels on the way up (the slanted line to
|
|
the left) must be
|
|
3E8 m/s * 10s = 30E8 m.
|
|
Since the left side of the above figure is a right triangle, and we know
|
|
the length of two of the sides, we can now solve for the height of the
|
|
train:
|
|
Height = [(30E8 m)^2 - (18E8 m)^2]^0.5 = 24E8 m
|
|
(It is a tall train, but this IS just a thought experiment). Now we
|
|
consider the frame of reference of the traveler. The light MUST travel
|
|
at 3E8 m/s for him also, and the height of the train doesn't change
|
|
because only lengths in the direction of motion are contracted.
|
|
Therefore, in his frame the light will reach the top of the train in
|
|
24E8 m /3E8 (m/s) = 8 seconds, and there you have it. To me the event
|
|
takes 10 seconds, while according to him it must take only 8 seconds. We
|
|
each measure time in different ways.
|
|
|
|
>To intensify this oddity, consider the fact that all inertial
|
|
frames are equivalent. That is, from the traveler's point of view he is
|
|
the one who is sitting still, while I zip past him at 0.6 c. So he will
|
|
think that it is MY clock that is running slowly. This lends itself
|
|
over to what seem to be paradoxes which I will not get into here. If
|
|
you have any questions on such things (such as the "twin paradox" --
|
|
which can be understood with special relativity, by the way) feel free
|
|
to ask me about them, and I will do the best I can to answer you.
|
|
|
|
>As I mentioned above, length contraction is another consequence
|
|
of relativity. Consider the same two travelers in our previous example,
|
|
and let each of them hold a meter stick horizontally (so that the length
|
|
of the stick is oriented in the direction of motion of the train). To
|
|
the outside observer, the meter stick of the traveler on the train will
|
|
look as if it is shorter than a meter. Similarly, the observer on the
|
|
train will think that the meter stick of the outside observer is the one
|
|
that is contracted. The closer one gets to the speed of light with
|
|
respect to an observer, the shorter the stick will look to that
|
|
observer. The factor which determines the amount of length contraction
|
|
and time dilation is called gamma.
|
|
|
|
>Gamma is defined as (1 - v^2/c^2)^(-1/2). For our train (for
|
|
which v = 0.6 c), gamma is 1.25. Lengths will be contracted and time
|
|
dilated (as seen by the outside observer) by a factor of 1/gamma = 0.8,
|
|
which is what we demonstrated with the difference in measured time (8
|
|
seconds compared to 10 seconds). Gamma is obviously an important number
|
|
in relativity, and it will appear as we discuss other consequences of
|
|
the theory.
|
|
|
|
>Another consequence of relativity is a relationship between
|
|
mass, energy, and momentum. By considering conservation of momentum and
|
|
energy as viewed from two frames of reference, one can find that the
|
|
following relationship must be true for an unbound particle:
|
|
E^2 = p^2 * c^2 + m^2 * c^4
|
|
Where E is energy, m is mass, and p is relativistic momentum which is
|
|
defined as
|
|
p = gamma * m * v (gamma is defined above)
|
|
By manipulating the above equations, one can find another way to express
|
|
the total energy as
|
|
E = gamma * m * c^2
|
|
Even when an object is at rest (gamma = 1) it still has an energy of
|
|
E = m * c^2
|
|
Many of you have seen something like this stated in context with the
|
|
theory of relativity
|
|
|
|
|
|
* E^2 = p^2 * c^2 + m^2 * c^4
|
|
|
|
is the "mass shell" equation for slower-than-light (i.e., subluminal) real
|
|
particles that can be directly detected. It is a pole in the complex energy
|
|
plane for the particle propagator in relativistic quantum field theory.
|
|
|
|
Virtual particles are "off mass shell" and do not obey this equation in
|
|
conventional theory. Virtual particles are that part of the propagator not
|
|
due to the energy pole. The propagator is not only determined by the
|
|
position of the poles. It is also determined by the path or contour over
|
|
which the integral representing the propagator is computed. This is a
|
|
boundary condition and this is where causality makes its mark. The
|
|
principle of retarded causality (i.e. causes always before effects) is
|
|
defined by a certain path in the complex energy plane. It is, however, not
|
|
the path that Feynman uses in conventional quantum electrodynamics. Feynman
|
|
finds that in order to renormalize properly, to get finite answers, one
|
|
must use a contour that includes both retarded causality (i.e., past
|
|
cause/future effect) and "teleological" advanced causality (i.e., future
|
|
cause/past effect).
|
|
|
|
Faster-than-light (i.e. superluminal) particles (i.e. tachyons) moving in
|
|
real time (Lorentzian signature +++-) obey a different mass shell equation
|
|
|
|
E^2 = p^2 * c^2 - m^2 * c^4
|
|
|
|
Propagation require E and p real means that p > mc. The De-Broglie
|
|
probability waves of length h/p are shorter than the Compton wavelength
|
|
h/mc. The tachyon wave fronts move at v(wave) slower than light but the
|
|
mass-energy transport wave packet velocity v(particle) is faster than
|
|
light. This is just the opposite of an ordinary particle in which the wave
|
|
front moves faster than light but the mass-energy transport group speed is
|
|
slower than light. For both kinds of particles
|
|
|
|
v(wave) v(particle) = c^2
|
|
|
|
For an ordinary subluminal particle, increasing the energy E makes
|
|
v(particle) increase. In contrast, for a superluminal particle, increasing
|
|
E makes v(particle) decrease - like a smoke vortex ring or a "roton"
|
|
excitation in superfluid helium. Indeed, faster than light particles are
|
|
more string-like than point-like.
|
|
|
|
The gamma factor for the faster than light particle is
|
|
|
|
(v^2/c^2 - 1)^(-1/2) with v = v(particle) so v/c > 1.
|
|
|
|
Superluminal particles grossly violate "causality" on the macroscopic scale
|
|
in Hinson's sense by which I mean "retarded causality". The question is do
|
|
they violate it in a consistent way or an inconsistent way? I suspect the
|
|
former is the case. If the latter is the case, then they cannot exist.
|
|
|
|
The string-like subnucleonic structure may mean that quarks are self-
|
|
trapped superluminal (or maybe transluminal) particles. This would
|
|
automatically explain the origin of the strong color force because color
|
|
was introduced to have the correct spin-statistics connection and
|
|
superluminal particles have the wrong spin-statistics connection (e.g. a
|
|
superluminal particle of spin 1/2 is a boson not a fermion.
|
|
|
|
Superluminal electrons or quarks in the free state would quickly radiate
|
|
photons in a Cerenkov cone speeding up to infinite speed at zero total
|
|
energy E but finite momentum p. This would explain why free quarks are not
|
|
seen. Condensed superluminal matter, if it could exist, would not obey the
|
|
Pauli exclusion principle and would not have the diverse and stable
|
|
organization of ordinary subluminal matter. Bound superluminal particles
|
|
constrained by a "bag" or by a force that increased with separation might
|
|
look like ordinary matter to an outside observer).
|
|
|
|
The ordinary subluminal Lorentz frame transformations describe both
|
|
subluminal and superluminal particle motions equally well and consistently.
|
|
Subluminal particles have a rest frame, superluminal particles do not. The
|
|
rest frame for a subluminal particle is defined by the particle's gamma =
|
|
E/mc^2 = 1 which means v(particle) = 0, E = mc^2, and p = 0. Similarly,
|
|
the faster than light particle obeys the same equation for gamma. Now if
|
|
gamma = 1, v = sqrt2c. If v > sqrt2c , gamma is less than 1. In this region
|
|
we have string-like length expansion in the direction of motion and time
|
|
contraction. If, on the other hand,c < v < sqrt2c gamma is bigger than 1
|
|
like ordinary slower than light particles with length contraction and time
|
|
dilation.
|
|
|
|
The mass shell equation for transluminal particles moving in imaginary time
|
|
of quantum-gravity's Euclidean signature (++++) is
|
|
|
|
E^2 = -p^2 * c^2 + m^2 * c^4
|
|
|
|
E and p real require p < mc which is the long wave limit which would be
|
|
most relevant to observational test. A transluminal particle moving locally
|
|
according to a Euclidean rather than Lorentzian metric signature would look
|
|
to our real time detectors like a new kind of particle with peculiar "dark
|
|
matter" kinematics and dynamics.
|
|
|
|
with gamma = (1 + v^2/c^2)^(-1/2) < 1 for all v.
|
|
|
|
Both the subluminal and superluminal particles in real time obey the
|
|
Einstein speed of light barrier. They are on opposite sides of the barrier.
|
|
Not so for transluminal particles which do not feel the barrier at all
|
|
since they are in a topologically distinct parallel universe connected to
|
|
ours by photons if we make the ansatz that a charged accelerating
|
|
transluminal particle emits photons in real time. But this may not be
|
|
correct. The question is neutral transluminal matter gravitate? How will
|
|
curvature in the Euclidean metric influence curvature in the Lorentz metric
|
|
to which it is connected by a Wick rotation. Will this explain the large
|
|
scale structure of the universe with its walls and voids?
|
|
|
|
Has Star Trek Command succeeded in converting among the subluminal,
|
|
superluminal and transluminal phases of matter at will? Note that a Star
|
|
Ship built of ordinary subluminal matter with subluminal life forms could
|
|
use a subluminal <---> transluminal matter converter to do two things.
|
|
First, transluminal matter ejected in a rocket exhaust at superluminal
|
|
speeds would be ultr-energy efficient enabling very heavy super-carrier
|
|
size craft to get close to the Einstein light barrier with small amounts of
|
|
fuel. Second, The transluminal matter is the exotic matter needed to
|
|
support stable traversable wormholes amplified out of the quantum foam for
|
|
warp drive.*
|
|
|
|
to be continued.
|
|
|
|
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
|
|
Path: moe.ksu.ksu.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!well!sarfatti
|
|
From: sarfatti@well.sf.ca.us (Jack Sarfatti)
|
|
Subject: Star Fleet Physics 3
|
|
Message-ID: <C1ED89.7z3@well.sf.ca.us>
|
|
Sender: news@well.sf.ca.us
|
|
Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link
|
|
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 06:40:57 GMT
|
|
Lines: 65
|
|
|
|
|
|
Part 3
|
|
Review of Part 2 basics:
|
|
>Gamma is defined as (1 - v^2/c^2)^(-1/2). For our train (for
|
|
which v = 0.6 c), gamma is 1.25. Lengths will be contracted and time
|
|
dilated (as seen by the outside observer) by a factor of 1/gamma = 0.8,
|
|
which is what we demonstrated with the difference in measured time (8
|
|
seconds compared to 10 seconds). Gamma is obviously an important number
|
|
in relativity, and it will appear as we discuss other consequences of
|
|
the theory.
|
|
|
|
>Another consequence of relativity is a relationship between
|
|
mass, energy, and momentum. By considering conservation of momentum and
|
|
energy as viewed from two frames of reference, one can find that the
|
|
following relationship must be true for an unbound particle:
|
|
E^2 = p^2 * c^2 + m^2 * c^4
|
|
Where E is energy, m is mass, and p is relativistic momentum which is
|
|
defined as
|
|
p = gamma * m * v (gamma is defined above)
|
|
By manipulating the above equations, one can find another way to express
|
|
the total energy as
|
|
E = gamma * m * c^2
|
|
Even when an object is at rest (gamma = 1) it still has an energy of
|
|
E = m * c^2
|
|
>Many of you have seen something like this stated in context with the
|
|
theory of relativity
|
|
|
|
Hinson continues: (Comments by Sarfatti ((Rashi II?)) between *...*)
|
|
|
|
>It is important to note that the mass in the above equations has
|
|
a special definition which we will now discuss. As a traveler approaches
|
|
the speed of light with respect to an observer, the observer sees the
|
|
mass of the traveler increase. (By mass, we mean the property that
|
|
indicates (1) how much force is needed to create a certain acceleration
|
|
and (2) how much gravitational pull you will feel from that object).
|
|
However, the mass in the above equations is defined as the mass measured
|
|
in the rest frame of the object. That mass is always the same. The
|
|
mass seen by the observer (which I will call the observed mass) is given
|
|
by gamma * m. Thus, we could also write the total energy as
|
|
E = (observed mass) * c^2
|
|
That observed mass approaches infinity as the object approaches the
|
|
speed of light with respect to the observer.
|
|
|
|
*This same equation is true for the superluminal particle in real time with
|
|
a different gamma = 1/(v^2/c^2 - 1)^1/2 for v/c > 1 and v = v(particle) =
|
|
c^2/v(wave). The equation is also true for a transluminal particle in
|
|
imaginary time with gamma = 1/(v^2/c^2 + 1)^1/2 for 0<=v/c <= infinity.
|
|
Note v/c = 1 is allowed in imaginary time. There is no light cone barrier
|
|
in imaginary time. Hawking mentions this in his book, A Brief History of
|
|
Time. The idea is that any elementary massive particle (quark, lepton, W,Z,
|
|
X mesons) of frame-invariant mass m can exist in three phases, subluminal,
|
|
superluminal and transluminal. Only the subluminal obeys causality in the
|
|
sense of vanishing quantum field commutators across spacelike intervals.
|
|
Only the subluminal obeys the familiar spin-statistics connection in which
|
|
spin 0,1,2 are bosons (coherent superfluid condensates) and spin 1/2,3/2
|
|
are fermions (Pauli exclusion). The field commutators for superluminal and
|
|
transluminal phases form the "exotic" and cosmological "dark matter" that
|
|
support the traversable worm holes for Star Ship "warp drive" and the
|
|
highly efficient fuel for "impulse power" allowing subluminal travel near
|
|
the Einstein barrier relative to the global frame of the "Hubble flow" of
|
|
the expanding universe in which the cosmic blackbody radiation is
|
|
isotropic. Note, that the local speed of the star ship through the worm
|
|
hole is subluminal. The effective global speed is superluminal because the
|
|
worm hole provides an extra-dimensional short cut connecting widely
|
|
separated space-time regions.*
|
|
|