Does the Higgs-Boson discovery pave the way for long distance space travel?

Originally posted by syrinx high priest
speed of light travel for something larger than a photon ?

how does a body which is basically a bag of water survive the g-forces ?

never gonna happen

'

we wouldn't travel as our human selves I think at that point. we will render our bodies obsolete.
the invention of a device that can contain the mind, or disintegrate the bodies' particles to 'download' so to speak.

Originally posted by Arrowmancer
2. The idea that we can't go past the speed of light baffles me. It's mostly the misunderstood and misquoted theory of general relativity. "An object of mass cannot be accelerated to the speed of light..." An independent observer holding a two flashlights pointed in opposite directions has achieved twice the speed of light. Speed of light to him, but the light beams, in relation to each other is twice the speed of light. Rubbish as understood by many. Throw in an understanding of mass and ability to manipulate how mass interacts with propulsion will take us to far away stars in moments, instead of lifetimes.

See this is where you are wrong and also where the understanding of light breaks down for most people. I'm certainly no expert but I'll try. The speed of light is constant and NOT relative to the observer. As velocity increases, time slows down. If you were stationary and observed two beams of light go in opposite directions, then both beams would appear to travel the same speed. If you traveled at light speed with one of the beams and observed the other, the path of light you observe would actually be different and the path would be longer but the light still travels to you at the same speed. The variable that actually changes is time. Time would slow down for you the observer, so the light travels further but at the same speed so it reaches you at the same 'time' because time has slowed for you.

I know I didn't do a good job at explaining it but refer to concepts such as time dilation and Einstein's special relativity. This discovery may still lead to distant space travel (see my previous post in this thread).

reply to post by fenceSitter


You don't even need Einstein for this. Speed of light(em wave) is determined by the magnetic and electric constant of the space it is passing through. The maximum known is c0, speed of light in vacuum. Relative motion doesn't matter, just as it doesn't matter for sound waves for example.

Now what would happen if matter would be accelerated towards speed of light(ignoring Einstein here). Matter is composed of atoms. The interactions between atoms the nuclei and electrons are electromagnetic, thus also will have an upper limit of c0.

Originally posted by yourmaker

Originally posted by syrinx high priest
speed of light travel for something larger than a photon ?

how does a body which is basically a bag of water survive the g-forces ?

never gonna happen

'

we wouldn't travel as our human selves I think at that point. we will render our bodies obsolete.
the invention of a device that can contain the mind, or disintegrate the bodies' particles to 'download' so to speak.

Originally posted by projectvxn
reply to post by bojimbo

 

The universe, in my opinion and observation, is little more than high quality packets of data. Everything about how the universe behaves screams "virtual". So to me it would stand to reason that by understanding the fundamentals behind "mass" (or how bits are grouped together in our binary universe), we could discover the key to using quantum entanglement to transmit a human across the universe.

This is interesting, can we agree that whether we travel in a spacecraft, as humans, robots, or with whatever kind of device, it cannot survive the radiation and/or bombardments of particles at high speed, so we must disintegrate "the traveller" to a(sub)atomic level to "upload" it through the universe?.
I was wondering, if a thing could exist as a warp bubble where mass and gravity is manipulated could the device in it be protected from things as radiation or particles smashing into it?..

Originally posted by moebius
reply to post by fenceSitter

 

You don't even need Einstein for this. Speed of light(em wave) is determined by the magnetic and electric constant of the space it is passing through. The maximum known is c0, speed of light in vacuum. Relative motion doesn't matter, just as it doesn't matter for sound waves for example.

Now what would happen if matter would be accelerated towards speed of light(ignoring Einstein here). Matter is composed of atoms. The interactions between atoms the nuclei and electrons are electromagnetic, thus also will have an upper limit of c0.

As I understand it, you cannot compare the speed of light to the speed of sound. If I was travelling at the speed of sound and you made a noise behind me, I would never hear it because the sound would never catch up to me. The speed of sound is a wave dependent on the matter it is passing through. Sounds requires matter. Light does not. If I am travelling at the speed of light and you shine a light at me from behind, the light would still reach me and even though it has to travel much further (than if I was standing still) it would 'appear' to reach me at the same time, not because the speed of light increased, but because my perception of time is slower.

Interactions between particles of atoms (matter) is electromagnetic but other particles involve strong and weak nuclear forces as well. How all these particles interact (gravity, electromagnetism, strong and weak nuclear forces) is still not well understood. According to Einstein's theory (because we can't really ignore it at this point), when matter is accelerated, it becomes heavier. When it becomes heavier it requires more energy to accelerate it further. Therefore it is believed that matter would not only be of infinite mass, it would also contain infinite energy. That is why travel at the speed of light is considered impossible.

reply to post by fenceSitter

I see no problems comparing light and sound. Both are waves and thus have a constant propagation speed independent of relative motion. Both obey the same wave equations. That is what I've tried to point out but failed obviously.

You cite Einstein and that matter becomes heavier. Do you agree that matter becomes heavier relative to the observer, and that matter mass in its own reference frame doesn't change?

Btw the standard model dealing with the sub-nucleus stuff is completely oblivious of gravity and relativistic effects as is quantum mechanics afaik. But my point actually has been that you will get into trouble even without having to deal with relativity and co.

reply to post by michael1983l


They would not put all that money into something without it having other uses we can exploit. WW2 was the race for the atom bomb, WW3 is the race for time travel, faster then light space travel, telaportation and anti-matter weapons. Does anyone remember recently the secret space plan going on secret mission to study and asteriod that was coming very close to earth. Well i have inside info that that asteroid was on a direct impact course with earth and they used nuclear weapons doped up with anti-matter produced at CERN and other facilities to create a super-bomb they put it aboard the new secret space plan and that was their mission. they succeed they are heroes and we would not be here right now if it wasn't for them except you will not now the truth about it for a long time if ever. We are much more and advanced then you are lead to believe. We always have thing about 30 years before you hear about it not including all the ancient tech which is always just timeless.

Ok now your going to ask me about my credentials and how i know this... i cannot the only reason i can tell you this is because i am using and alias and my computer location cannot be tracked. i can also tell you i never capitalize my i's becuase i dont have time too.

reply to post by moebius

Technically the wave equations are different (Wikipedia - Doppler effect).

For waves that propagate in a medium, such as sound waves, the velocity of the observer and of the source are relative to the medium in which the waves are transmitted. The total Doppler effect may therefore result from motion of the source, motion of the observer, or motion of the medium. Each of these effects are analyzed separately. For waves which do not require a medium, such as light or gravity in general relativity, only the relative difference in velocity between the observer and the source needs to be considered.

I don't think mass is relative to the observer. If matter is accelerated to close to the speed of light, the mass increases for it's own frame of reference as well as the observer.

I don't think gravity is understood nearly well enough to say "sub-nucleus stuff is completely oblivious of gravity". I know the theoretical graviton particle does not fit the Standard Model but the effects between the various sub-atomic particles may yet explain gravity.

BTW I'm not trying to prove you wrong on anything, I'm still trying to understand this better myself.

reply to post by WiseThinker


Wow that is interesting, honestly when I saw the post I failed to see what relevance the discovery of the Higgs Boson would have to faster than light travel. But the idea of a ship interacting with Higgs field rendering it without mass does seem plausible in the distant future. It would be loophole around Einsteins theory that as an object approaches the speed of light its mass would increase exponentially. Excellent point WiseThinker.

This is all way beyond me. Even Einstein's stuff is way beyond me.

Kudos to people who think they understand any of hti.

But I do watn to address what the OP said. He/she implied it was impossible to travel to other stars without some sort of hyperdrive or warpdrive or whatever. Some super fancy technology.

Actually, look at this:
news.discovery.com ...

But the right solar sail can take you much, much farther. In order to achieve interstellar travel, Matloff stresses that less mass and more of a solar push are key. That means deploying an ultralight solar sail really close to the sun.

"You'd have to position the craft as close to the sun as you can, probably within the orbit of Mercury," Matloff says. "And in a case like that, it would reach maybe 200 astronomical units (200 times the distance between Earth and the sun) in something like 10 or 15 years."

Of course, that also means the craft would require 7,000 years to reach the nearest star -- but that's if the sails depended on current technology. Matloff believes a 50-nanometer beryllium sail, built in space, could potentially make an interstellar voyage in as little as 2,000 years. Go lighter than that, via perforated sails or lighter metamaterials, and potential speeds increase.

"There are materials coming online like carbon nanotubes and graphenes, and these may allow you to cut the mass of the sail even more," Matloff says. "So, I think we'll be able to do to a lot better than 2,000 years to the nearest star. Will we get below 1,000 years? Maybe. Will we get down to a couple hundred? Well then I have my doubts, but that’s my own personal feeling."

So anywhere between 1,000 to 7,000 years is possible with a solar sail. What about ion drives or nuclear drives, all of which have been research and do not break the laws of physics. I've read that a nuclear spacecraft would get us to the nearest star in less than 100 years. You see, the problem isn't getting to other stars, the problem is surviving the long journey. Even if we were only given 10,000 years to accomplish this, that still leave us a window of 3,000 years before we do the solar sail mission to the nearest star. In that 3,000 years, I think we should develop a lot of the technologies needed to survive the journey. And if we send 10 different craft to multiple stars then we an exponentially colonize the nearby star systems and then from there we can fill up this part of the galaxy in the next 10,000,000 years. That's not a long time in the grand scheme of things. In fact, Fermi's Paradox asked why we do not see aliens because based on the laws of physics it's possible for a species to colonize an entire galaxy within some 100 million years. It doesn't require breaking any law of physics to do that. It requires reproduction and ability to survive long journeys.

It's like wondernig how humans produce enough babies for our seven billion people. Oh, gosh, how do they manage? Well we have seven billion people each doing different things and handle their set of problems. As we expand outward into space in ships and coloinize other stars systems, we will continue to handle our own set of problem even as there're possibly tens of trillions of us. And if we really do intend on colonizing vast portions of this galaxy, we may reach Sextillions (+/-) of people like us all handling their own sh** and not needing super technology or galaxy government. (I really am not sure what our population will look like in a single star system after 50,000,000 years of reproduction and conflict, but if it's like today then I'd expect Quintillions galaxy-wide. See: Multiply earth population by a billion more earth populations and you get into the Quintillions. But if we started living in places unfathomable to us at the moment in addition to living on the earth-like planets then it couold go up quite a bit. Who knows what the constraints will be? Will they even have bodies? If we bump into finite limits on energy, population might fall just as much as it might rise.)

Originally posted by jonnywhite
This is all way beyond me. Even Einstein's stuff is way beyond me.

Kudos to people who think they understand any of hti.

actually u are completely mistaken,, if it is beyond ,just simple,,
its most likely, a wrong hypothesis.
the idea that complicated makes right, or intelligent conversation or science fact,, is in itself a oxymoron.
energy
mass
speed
there u now understand why a big fist hurts more ,,than a small fist.
simple,,
higgs, is like CHI does not have mass/effect but does have effect on mass
simple

reply to post by fenceSitter

Technically the wave equations are different (Wikipedia - Doppler effect).

Not sure what you mean. Can you clarify?

I don't think mass is relative to the observer. If matter is accelerated to close to the speed of light, the mass increases for it's own frame of reference as well as the observer.

Let's assume I would be at rest and you would pass me at very high speed(close to c). I would see your increased mass. Now lets switch to your reference frame. Then you would see me passing you at very high speed and my increased mass. Whose mass is really increased now? The whole RT is about transformations from one reference frame to another.

I don't think gravity is understood nearly well enough to say "sub-nucleus stuff is completely oblivious of gravity".

I think you misunderstood me. I didn't mean that the standard model claims that there is no gravity, just that the model doesn't account for it (oblivious). Thus discussing relativistic and gravitational effects on subatomic stuff is completely over my head.

reply to post by moebius

I agree there are certainly similarities to waves of light and sound but there are also differences. I honestly don't understand all this well enough to efficiently debate the differences. I understand that sound requires a medium to pass though therefore to calculate the speed of sound, the motion of the source, the observer and medium need to be considered. Since light does not require a medium, only the relative velocity between the source and observer needs to be considered.

As far as I understand, if I pass you at high speed and you are at rest, you see my increased mass as you stated. But if we switch frame of reference to myself, I don't think I would observe an increase in your mass, in fact I think the opposite. Since I am the one travelling at high speed it is only my mass that is increased. I think there would be a difference in my observations though. Either I observe my mass increasing the same as you (which I find most likely), or I observe my mass stay the same and yours decrease. Again I don't think mass is relative.

I do enjoy this topic and glad someone is challenging my understanding. After all isn't that how we learn? If my understanding is wrong I want to know about it!

reply to post by michael1983l


hmm, I'm not sure how this relates to the speed of light.

What this does show us, is why things have mass.

Mass, to us, seems self explanatory, you are made of stuff and it has mass.

What the higgs boson proves, is that there is a higgs field permeating every point in space, and when objects move through this, the resistance offered by the field (think pushing something through water) is what actually creates the illusion of mass.

Mass doesn't exist, mass is merely the reaction of particles moving through the higgs field and meeting resistance.

I guess in a round about way, this could have space travel implications as if we are able to manipulate that field, we could essentially remove mass from anything.

reply to post by phishyblankwaters


is what actually creates the illusion of mass.
so if i hit u with my mass ive fist,, it would be an illusion,, not real,, or punishable in a court of law then.?
please

is what actually creates the illusion of mass.

illusion of mass. right.

reply to post by fenceSitter


To understand this fully, you need to understand there are things about the standard model that are incorrect, but the standard model of the atom, has grown into a kind of wikipedia, so information is stored there. So when you want to do some science, you just need that bit that pertains to your work.

So people keep that model. Now in there you have various ideas about what constitutes an ether.

You have the Dirac Sea, and the Quantum foam as a for instance. You also have Absolute space, of Newton, and Absolute Space-time of Einstein.

Well I am sorry but everyone knows the ether exists and all that was ever said, was we can remove it from our calculations. But then that over time becomes it does not exist.

Well we have been again proving over the last 20 years it does exist, and we know a great deal about its properties, which then forced particle physics to come to term with mass or be left behind in the dust.

One of the properties of the ether is that it causes drag on mass. Hence you cannot exceed the speed of light or attain the speed of light if the object has mass.

So I like to use the quantum foam instead of the Dirac Sea, because it is easier to visualize how that would cause drag.

In fact most people can understand such things as wormholes better, if you imagine just being able to remove the quantum foam. Then you have a pure vacuum, like that which exists beyond the edge of our known universe, and so then you don't have space-time in that region. It is just a void, so there is nothing to restrict your speed of travel.

And people have long been considering wormholes and how you might make one and use one. Well this gets us closer.

Also you have seen UFO reports and mass canceled craft doing 90 degree turns and all of that well if they do in fact exist, and have mass, then someone has the ability to use the Higgs Field in such a way as to cancel out that inertia.

Well we don't know because we are just beginning to study it with high energy particle physics but we have been studying the quantum foam and the ether itself in many ways over recent years and the vortices in a rotating superfluid, although difficult for the average person to wrap their head around, it is caused by the interaction of the superfluid and the background, underpinning ether, whatever it is.

And such people as Hawking have said and many agree that as a result we should assume it is grainy.
So we have lots of ideas of what it might be like since we have been peaking through the keyhole. Well if CERN has actually smacked into it, well it won't be long before we are doing much more than that but analyzing its characteristics.

ref

irac Sea

re; Quantum Foam

All you can do these days is just ignore it when people go on about Michelson and Morely.

Light has no mass, hence it is not affected by the Quantum Foam. Only things with mass are affected by the quantum foam. Light is made by mass interactions, and hence is not propelled faster than c.
The Quantum Foam prevents all reactions from exceeding c, perhaps because of its makeup, in relation to forces such as the expansion of the universe, and maybe the size of the bubbles, at Plank Length.

We are not sure because well how do you feel your hand? Well you can't you need to feel it with another hand. So how do you feel the ether if everything is made of ether? You smack it really hard. And that is what they did and they hit something.

reply to post by Rocketman7


So here is the interesting part, other than the smiley in the previous post that somehow got put in the Dirac Sea link by WIkipedia because they want an expert to correct or verify the data or try to bring it in-line with current theory.

Well most people probably see that the quantum foam is easier to work with and 20 years ago, it was Hawking who suggested we use that instead since it is more intuitive.

But the interesting part is that they may have hit that brick wall, the quantum foam. Which they are trying to call the Higgs Field now since the Dirac Sea was not a practical solution to the problem.

So they are propelling protons which have mass to almost c.

Other particles have been detected elsewhere...

When getting very close to c, the energy difference between two particles going at almost the same speed can be very large. A famous example of a very high-energy particle detected on Earth is the so-called “Oh-My-God particle”, probably a proton detected at a speed close to 0.9999999999999999999999951 c:

So then you know that as you approach c, it still takes acceleration to increase speed, and it is acceleration that moves your head back when you step on the gas and it is not going to do that no matter what speed you travel. It ONLY happens when you change speed. And go faster or step on the breaks.

So you see its as if, you only need to get the foam that is around you going fast with you, then it lubricates your passage through the foam, until you reach c.

Now one way you can look at it, is if you are plowing through the quantum foam, when you get to c, you are squishing the foam bubbles in front of you to the point where the near wall of the bubble is now hitting the back wall of the bubble. So it is highly compressed and it locks up. It becomes like a solid.

Infinite density. A brick wall.

But what if you sent a very thin beam ahead of you to start moving the foam out of the way? Then what if you made that thin beam into a wide beam? Now you have a tunnel brother. And with a tunnel that has no foam in it, you have no inertia.

reply to post by Rocketman7


So here is how the quantum foam or the Higgs Field is useful in every day physics.

So Michelson and Morely did not know or forgot that light has no mass, so it would not show drag against the quantum foam. Well they though the ether was the lumineferous jello Aether, well because they were not playing with toys like we have.

Well its not jello. That much we know.

BUT, light does curve around massive bodies. So then, how on earth does it do that if it has no mass, and it is not affected by the quantum foam?

Well it is a vibration IN the quantum foam, and it is the quantum foam, that is compressed around massive bodies.

So as space-time itself curves around a massive body, you can look at it like concentric rings that get further apart as you move away from a massive body.
NOW you have a field.

NOW you can plot densities and you can plot pressure areas. Now you are doing 21st century physics.

And apply that to molecular physics and molecular biology and you can really begin to see how covalent bonds form.

With the work that is going on at CERN, well people have a lot of different ways they want to use this.
Its going to be like people vying to get a few minutes with a giant telescope.

If not today then at some point. And of course people using other colliders to try to do the same science.

The majority of work that has been done in dark energy may be that which is done with super-magnets.
Since magnetism is dark, we can't see it, but we can play with it.

But what is exciting about a better understanding of mass is that mass moves in normal modes.
And those normal modes can be seen with phonon study.

So then if all mass has normal modes, and all modes, every single way in which mass moves is a combination of normal modes, then by having something like a Higgs Boson, you can look at a situation and determine the modes that the substance is in.
Which probably under most circumstances looks chaotic. But we know that since all modes are combinations of normal modes, you can sort out that chaos, by interpreting which modes are being used. So today that is like impossible but with computing and improvements of methods of investigation we can use that knowledge to do a great deal of investigation into nature.

And the beautiful thing about it is it is a macro effect also. The way traffic moves or the way people in a classroom interact any time mass moves, it uses a normal mode.
So you see we already know a lot about the Higgs Boson, since we have studied mass for a long time.
But being able to do experiments with it, now thats interesting science for the future.

reply to post by Rocketman7


You see if I use the term 'space-time' you have no clue at all what I am talking about because it is a very vague term.

If I use the term 'quantum foam' ok, now you at least have an idea of its properties.

Well they are two different names for the same thing. At the time of Einstein, they had just gone through Michelson and Morely and so just wanted to avoid the subject since they could not detect it.

Well we are some ways ahead of those people, and we use it, and know a great deal about it.

For instance Bose Einstein condensate experiments and superconducting superfluid study etc.

And astronomy, they are very much interested in large scale effects around stars and the area around stars and so these regions of density, are important to understand such things as inertia and drag and all the effects of mass other than just gravity. Mass and gravity are very much related. In fact inertial mass and gravitational mass is what Einstein was on about in the elevator. Go sideways or go up and down, you would not know the difference but one is inertial mass and one is gravitational inertia.

On earth = 1g forces. Accelerate you see we just use the same mass. it might be 6 g in a jet.

Early experiments showed that untrained humans were able to tolerate 17 g eyeballs-in (compared to 12 g eyeballs-out) for several minutes without loss of consciousness or apparent long-term harm.[

Paracoccus denitrificans being subject to conditions of extreme gravity. The bacteria were cultivated while being rotated in an ultracentrifuge at high speeds corresponding to 403,627 g

Again the bacteria win.

That is all.