Ask any question you want about Physics

a reply to: Erno86

OK so you've got a theoretical engine that will produce what you think will be enough thrust to travel interstellar.

However, How are you going to deal with relativistic issues pertaining to the value of C? Still can't go anywhere fast enough to make the design useful for travelling among the stars in any reasonable amount of time.

Even with a black hole to supply the power to accellarate to close to C for something as massive as a star ship it would require a crap load of energy and the usage would be brute force and inefficient.. I'd look at another design if I were you. Something a little more elegant.

What are the main differences between QED & QCD?

originally posted by: boomstick88
a reply to: Pirvonen
NASA, investors, universities. Somebody who is willing to sit down and talk to me. Big $$$$$$ and benefits involved.
Thank you

Post your youtube demo video if you've got one. One person making similar claims has already posted their antigravity video for us. It wasn't very impressive. If yours is impressive I might want to talk to you. You never did say how high you could make water flow upward.

originally posted by: BASSPLYR
What are the main differences between QED & QCD?

QED is an abelian gauge theory that deals with electron-photon interactions, electromagnetic interaction, while QCD is a non-abelian gauge theory that deals with quark-gluon strong force interactions.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Thanks Arbi,

Looks like for now I should just focus on QED then. CQED looks pretty interesting. As does QED in consideration of Vacuum Permittivity Modification.

Again, Thanks. I always get thought provoking and useful answers from you guys. This thread is an awesome Idea.

originally posted by: BASSPLYR
What are the main differences between QED & QCD?

QED is about electrons and photons. It came first.

QCD is about quarks and gluons. Came later with quark theory of strong interactions.

QCD is enormously harder technically and can't be solved analytically (perturbations don't converge), and requires large scale numerical computations.

What is a ballpark theory of; how much out of the total volume of the universe which contains absolutely 0 forms of matter and energy, also contains no form of photon (no form meaning including virtual)?

In theory If you replicated the casimir effect experiment with 2 parallel plates a couple of nm apart and fired x-rays, say, down the middle could you increase c by increasing vacuum permittivity?

And could you test this experimentally by manufacturing a looong tube with a 2 nm hole down the centre which you send x-rays through?

originally posted by: BASSPLYR
a reply to: Erno86

OK so you've got a theoretical engine that will produce what you think will be enough thrust to travel interstellar.

However, How are you going to deal with relativistic issues pertaining to the value of C? Still can't go anywhere fast enough to make the design useful for travelling among the stars in any reasonable amount of time.

Even with a black hole to supply the power to accellarate to close to C for something as massive as a star ship it would require a crap load of energy and the usage would be brute force and inefficient.. I'd look at another design if I were you. Something a little more elegant.

The micro-mini black hole propulsion unit, onboard the starship, should produce it's own magnetic field [or fields] surrounding the starship. This magnetic field should negate any relativistic effects when the starship reaches the speed of light barrier --- And the only way for the starship to reach the speed of C, is that the momentum of thrust must be from some form of photon propulsion.

Such a starcraft would essentially almost have an unlimitless source of fuel --- as in starlight photons --- for any interstellar trip amongst the stars --- Whereby the freebird starship would increase speed --- exponentially squared --- into the superluminal realm.

Arbitrageur...Feel free to comment on the feasibility of my theory on starship propulsion?

I hope you don't think I'm trying to hijack your thread?

I mainly base my theory on my nighttime Foo Fighter sighting back in 1976, [and other people's sighting reports as well], since I figure that any sentient species that could arrive at our planet on there own free will...would have discovered some form of propulsion, that would have them and there starship travel freely in the superluminal realm.

a reply to: Erno86

So you are going to have a magnetic field that will negate relativistic effects. That part IS interesting. How you plan to negate the effect using the magnetic field?

Hows the photon going to push a massive starship to light speed? It still weighs a few metric tons at least I'd figure. Last time I shined a pen laser at a car it doesn't go anywhere. You would need A LOT of light. Maybe more than being produced from the black hole in the center of our ship.

You're idea is interesting but you are missing some critical parts. But go back to your magnetic field to negate relativity. That part might have something to it.

And I'd strongly look at a better source for the energy. And the propulsion. Question if the "magnetic" field can negate relativity. could you use that to impart propulsion granted you got one of those critical missing parts I mentioned solved.

originally posted by: ImaFungi
What is a ballpark theory of; how much out of the total volume of the universe which contains absolutely 0 forms of matter and energy, also contains no form of photon (no form meaning including virtual)?

If the big bang theory is correct, radiation from the big bang is everywhere (CMB). That means so are photons.

a reply to: Poon
Ever hear of the "Vacuum catastrophe"? That and dark energy are signs we don't really understand the vacuum in our universe, so to me it seems a bit premature to speculate about how the vacuum in another universe would behave.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Thanks for replying Arbi, and while I completely agree with you about the prematurity of speculation on other universes, could my idea not have the potential to let us understand our own universe a little better?

originally posted by: BASSPLYR
a reply to: Erno86

So you are going to have a magnetic field that will negate relativistic effects. That part IS interesting. How you plan to negate the effect using the magnetic field?

Hows the photon going to push a massive starship to light speed? It still weighs a few metric tons at least I'd figure. Last time I shined a pen laser at a car it doesn't go anywhere. You would need A LOT of light. Maybe more than being produced from the black hole in the center of our ship.

You're idea is interesting but you are missing some critical parts. But go back to your magnetic field to negate relativity. That part might have something to it.

And I'd strongly look at a better source for the energy. And the propulsion. Question if the "magnetic" field can negate relativity. could you use that to impart propulsion granted you got one of those critical missing parts I mentioned solved.

In places that lack starlight photons for fuel for the micro-mini black hole propulsion unit onboard the starship: by "giving a unidirectional change of the gravito-inertial mass of an object by modulation the parameters of the physical vacuum. The suggested technique employs an asymmetrical envelope of EM neutral plasma." This technique would not only provide a photon fuel source for the photon propulsion unit...but also an EM contained electrified plasma shield for the starship itself.

"Inductive coupling between the electromagnetic and the gravitational field of the starship, should stop the mass of the starship from being affected by the relativistic effects of C and/or in the superluminal realm."

a reply to: Erno86

Interesting wheres the source. Id love to read about it.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: ImaFungi
What is a ballpark theory of; how much out of the total volume of the universe which contains absolutely 0 forms of matter and energy, also contains no form of photon (no form meaning including virtual)?

If the big bang theory is correct, radiation from the big bang is everywhere (CMB). That means so are photons.

I presume you are using the term 'everywhere' loosely.

What I meant in my question was; Of volume of the universe which contains 0 forms of non photon energy and matter

So the total volume of the universe is one of energy, matter, and pure nothingness, we presume...

So there is all types of energy and matter, and then there is the distinctive photon, in my question;

What percentage of the total volume of the universe is pure nothingness and photon/virtual photon; and then what are the distinctive percentages between those two categories;

And then also; What percentage of total energy and matter is photon/virtual photon?

And yes that percentage evolves over time, but is it thought at big bang 0% and as the universe evolves that number increases to 100%?

And theories of universe heat death and what have you, maximum entropy, what is the theory as to how the mechanism of gravity will break down, will that decay into pure photons as well?

And what is the E and B field made of? Or the E and B field itself is made of fundamental particles of an untalked about type?

a reply to: Erno86

So if the plasma field generates more than enough photons to power the black hole then why even rely on star light. Why not just have it power it's self all the time. If you have no mass and C is infinite or however far you've pushed the goal posts why would you need super high energy photons to propel the ship? Can't the field that's changing the vacuum which is asymmetrical in your words create a gradient of vacuum pressure front to back that would impel it forward.

Parts of your theory make some sense. Can't for the life of me understand why you'd need a black hole though or that much power to modify the space vacuum.

Also do you know how the plasma field is altering the parameters of the vacuum.

originally posted by: Poon
Thanks for replying Arbi, and while I completely agree with you about the prematurity of speculation on other universes, could my idea not have the potential to let us understand our own universe a little better?

Well I think the vacuum permittivity in our universe is what it is, and I wasn't sure exactly what you meant about changing it but to me if it's different then it's more likely to be from another universe.

As for whether we could learn something from doing any experiment including the one you suggested, I think most of the experimental results from classical mechanics could have been predicted, and with relativity it's a bit trickier but once you have the theory you can predict those experimental results also.

Quantum mechanics is another story where experimental results have been difficult to predict based on logic, so I would say any time you do an experiment involving quantum mechanics which hasn't been done before, an unexpected result is possible. If however you're expecting the electromagnetic radiation in your experiment to travel faster than c in your proposed experiment, I don't think that's likely to happen in our universe, but sure, we might learn something.

In fact there are two proposed explanations for the Casimir effect and I don't know which one is correct, so I think it would be great if someone could devise an experiment to figure out whether it's caused by vacuum energy or the van der Waals force between polarizable molecules of the conductive plates.

originally posted by: Erno86
Arbitrageur...Feel free to comment on the feasibility of my theory on starship propulsion?

I hope you don't think I'm trying to hijack your thread?

Superluminal propuslion has been discussed in this thread in the context of Sonny White and his co-workers at a NASA lab studying alternative methods of propulsion. I think it's an interesting topic. His idea is that if you can create something analogous to "dark energy" at will and on a scale of your choosing, you might be able to achieve superluminal propulsion. I don't think it's impossible, but, that's a big "if" since I have no idea how to create something like that, but if he can do it he would surely have something interesting to explore.

I can't say I'm familiar enough with your idea to comment on it but if you have any scientific papers on the topic like the one Sonny White wrote, I'd like to read them. I read Sonny White's paper and found it very interesting.

If there are no scientific papers on the specific method of propulsion you're taking about but you think it's feasible, get Sonny White to look at it, but he's more qualified to comment on feasible alternatives than I am. I am of course somewhat skeptical of proposals which didn't come from scientists or have no papers or research behind them.

originally posted by: ImaFungi
I presume you are using the term 'everywhere' loosely.

In the context of your question where you said there was also no matter around, I don't think so. You can block photons with matter as in a Faraday Cage, and there may be some other examples involving matter but aside from that I think what I said is true that anywhere you don't have matter, you have radiation from the cosmic microwave background.

What I meant in my question was; Of volume of the universe which contains 0 forms of non photon energy and matter

So the total volume of the universe is one of energy, matter, and pure nothingness, we presume...

So there is all types of energy and matter, and then there is the distinctive photon, in my question;

What percentage of the total volume of the universe is pure nothingness and photon/virtual photon; and then what are the distinctive percentages between those two categories;

Without understanding dark matter it's a hard question to answer. In the bullet cluster and a couple other cases there's not a perfect correlation between dark matter and normal matter, but usually I suppose there is a decent correlation though it's not perfect.

I don't have any percentages for you, maybe George Smoot does, in the model he created which he demonstrates in this video:

www.ted.com...

I can say qualitively from looking at his model that it appears the vast majority of the universe is as close to nothing as we can get, which means maybe 1 hydrogen atom per cubic meter of baryonic matter, and the cosmic microwave background radiation. I honestly don't know how the dark matter is distributed and how much if any is in these vast voids, but where baryonic matter is sparse, so apparently would be dark matter if there is any in such regions.

And yes that percentage evolves over time, but is it thought at big bang 0% and as the universe evolves that number increases to 100%?

And theories of universe heat death and what have you, maximum entropy, what is the theory as to how the mechanism of gravity will break down, will that decay into pure photons as well?

Big bang was thought to be all energy, matter came later. I don't think gravity will break down initially, in fact it's thought that black holes will dominate at some point in the future. These black holes won't be able to "evaporate" until the cosmic microwave background cools off some more. When the black holes absorb less energy from the CMB than they emit, then they are expected to "evaporate" via Hawking radiation, which I still wouldn't call a breakdown of gravity, I'd call it Hawking radiation.

And what is the E and B field made of? Or the E and B field itself is made of fundamental particles of an untalked about type?

Electric charge is fundamental meaning we have no deeper understanding at this time. B fields apparently have their origin in the motion of electric charges, or something similar to that like "spin". If someone says the "virtual photons" we use to model these fields are mathematical constructs, I would agree that's possible, and don't know if they are more than that or not, but that's the model we have and I don't have a better one.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Thanks Arbitrageur.
I had thought that one explanation of the Casimir effect was due to the separation of the conductive plates being less than the wavelength of some virtual photons. The resultant pressure due to their existence outside the plates and absence between the plates caused them to be pushed together.

Therefore I thought that the absence of these virtual photons between the plates might lower the 'resistance' of the quantum field to EM propagation and lead to an increase in the speed of light.

I realise now that my understanding of the physics behind the Casimir effect was at best grossly simplified!

originally posted by: Poon
a reply to: Arbitrageur

Thanks Arbitrageur.
I had thought that one explanation of the Casimir effect was due to the separation of the conductive plates being less than the wavelength of some virtual photons. The resultant pressure due to their existence outside the plates and absence between the plates caused them to be pushed together.

That is one possibility.

I realise now that my understanding of the physics behind the Casimir effect was at best grossly simplified!

I knew there were two competing explanations but apparently there is also a third and apparently it's less than certain which explanation is correct:

www.sciencedirect.com...

The role of the vacuum, in the Casimir Effect, is a matter of some dispute: the Casimir force has been variously described as a phenomenon resulting “from the alteration, by the boundaries, of the zero-point electromagnetic energy” (Bordag, Mohideen, & Mostepanenko, 2001), or a “van der Waals force between the metal plates” that can be “computed without reference to zero point energies” (Jaffe, 2005). Neither of these descriptions is grounded in a consistently quantum mechanical treatment of matter interacting with the electromagnetic field. However, the Casimir Effect has been canonically described within the framework of macroscopic quantum electrodynamics (Philbin, 2010). On this general account, the force is seen to arise due to the coupling of fluctuating currents to the zero-point radiation, and it is in this restricted sense that the phenomenon requires the existence of zero-point fields. The conflicting descriptions of the Casimir Effect, on the other hand, appear to arise from ontologies in which an unwarranted metaphysical priority is assigned either to the matter or the fields, and this may have a direct bearing on the problem of the cosmological constant.

originally posted by: BASSPLYR
a reply to: Erno86

So if the plasma field generates more than enough photons to power the black hole then why even rely on star light. Why not just have it power it's self all the time. If you have no mass and C is infinite or however far you've pushed the goal posts why would you need super high energy photons to propel the ship? Can't the field that's changing the vacuum which is asymmetrical in your words create a gradient of vacuum pressure front to back that would impel it forward.

Parts of your theory make some sense. Can't for the life of me understand why you'd need a black hole though or that much power to modify the space vacuum.

Also do you know how the plasma field is altering the parameters of the vacuum.

www.youtube.com...


The fuel for plasma generation is a finite fuel, which would be insufficient for long term interstellar flights.

You would need high energy photons from the accretion disc of the micro-mini black hole for thruster output, that should accelerate the starship to the speed of light barrier and beyond into the superluminal realm.

"Electric fields heat and accelerate the plasma while the magnetic fields direct the plasma in the proper direction as it is ejected from the engine."

quote: www.nasa.gov...

"Test results suggest the black hole jets are incredibly efficient," 'the process that launches and accelerates jets must be extremely efficient,' "the authors wrote in their paper," 'and might be the most efficient way of transporting energy from the vicinity of the black hole to infinity.'

quote: www.arstechnica.com...: